Jesus. This testimony about the Met arrests before the Coronation is absolutely damning. It turns out the 3 safety volunteers arrested actually work in partnership with the Met and were wearing hi vis vests with the Met name on them.
The Republic protestors were not allowed to contact the police liaison officer they had been working with who could have confirmed they were following the agreed rules.
And yet the Met spokesman can still sit in front of the committee and say the arress and holding for 16 hours was justified.
Fecking lunacy
Did you hear about the young Australian woman who was locked up for many hours on the day of the coronation just because she happened to be standing next to some protesters? She had specially come over to the UK to celebrate the occasion.
No she hadn't she has lived in the UK for years but the rest of your story is correct she was arrested for 13 hours for the crime of standing next to the wrong person.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Lack of council housing ? Individually selling at a discount to an existing tenant gives ownership & empowers the working class to move up in life but collectively it beggars councils which can't replace housing stock.
Doesn't change the total stock, though, does it?
Disclosure: my parents purchased their council house.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Lack of council housing ? Individually selling at a discount to an existing tenant gives ownership & empowers the working class to move up in life but collectively it beggars councils which can't replace housing stock.
Not necessarily What beggared councils was the Treasury taking most of the proceeds and using it towards funding tax cuts. And limiting the amount of the balance councils were allowed to reinvest in new housing stock.
When our democracy is under attack, it’s up to the labour movement to fight back.
The Public Order Act must be repealed, now.
Jeremy Corbyn yesterday
SKS Labour not a single MP voted to repeal muttering something about letting Fascism bed in
2 pronged attack on Starmer this week from the Corbynite wing. Corbyn attacking Sir Keir over his backing for the POA, McDonnell attacking Sir Keir over his plans to allow more building on greenbelt land if he becomes PM
Easy win this for Starmer. He is playing to his base and saying the right things. He also knows he will probably not have to meet this in govt especially if in a coalition with the NIMBY Lib Dems.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
I agree
Build new council homes - but rent caps solve a short term issue while creating a way bigger long term one.
If you want to increase supply quickly ban Short term lets of houses that were built for residential purposes (i.e. have historically had a council tax rating).
And make it much easier for individuals to do their own new-builds and extensions. Rather than the current dichotomy of zero development or large scale developers because they're the only ones with the deep pockets to navigate the planning system.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Evisceration of local government and housing for a start. Both unequivocally traceable back to her administrations. You can argue about industrial strategy (or lack of it); education; Europe.
Anway, let's get back to lefty chortling at the NatC conference. That's some line up.
David Starkey and Darren Grimes on the same venue and day? That'll be fun.
"...Why David: I haven't seen you since I left you out to dry in that interview! How are you doing?" "I lost my job you overindulged little shit. Have you ever done any actual work ever?" "I'm doing great: I left my Twitter account for a job with GBNews!" "So your readership dropped, then..."
The Tory LoonFest seems to be wrapping up today after a procession of gargoyles who are either demented, deluded or both. Some are clearly care in the community cases, but one or two were spouting stuff that was not merely deluded drivel but actually evil.
If that is the beating intellectual heart of today´s Conservative right wingers, I can not help wondering whether the Americans, who presumably paid for much of this demonic bean feast, might be wondering whether their money has been well spent.
In any event I am beginning to think that the Tories could end up being third in the votes cast at the next GE.
As for the by elections. I do not think that the Conservatives will be looking forward to any of them, despite presumably being forewarned ahead of their Lib Dem and Labour opponents.
Is Rishi Sunak an irrelevant Tory nutter - he described China as the UK's biggest long term threat, and promised to close all their Confucius Institutes during his leadership campaign. Huge if true.
Has he delivered ?
And Russia has declared they are in an existential war with the entire Western world.
Given that, a few extra weapons doesn’t sound especially wacky.
I am not complaining about a few extra weapons but the sabre rattling rhetoric from fringe Tories wanting to be noticed.
Just because Russia proclaims something does not mean others have to follow. They have invaded a sovereign nation. Does not mean we should.
No one is suggesting we invade Russia* or China
*I advocate Thermonuclear War with Russia, but not invasion.
No but just because Russia states something, for domestic consumption, does not make it fact. That is the point I am making and politicians ramping up the rhetoric on both China and Russia, primarily for their own self-aggrandisment is really not helpful at all.
Putin hasn't talked about recreating the Russian empire for domestic consumption. He actually wants to do it. And he has no restraint about the means required to achieve the ends. China isn't sabre rattling over Taiwan for domestic consumption. They intend to bring its 23 million people under their power just as they've been prepared to commit genocide against the Uighars. It isn't complicated. There's a reason why India and Japan have started doing joint naval exercises for the first time. It's not to do with us.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Evisceration of local government and housing for a start. Both unequivocally traceable back to her administrations. You can argue about industrial strategy (or lack of it); education; Europe.
Europe? In what way? Taking us in to the ERM?
I'll leave that one for you to argue. She actually started out quite constructively, but then inspired her devotees to go to war with Europe. You can't really say she was solely, or even primarily responsible for what's happened since, though.
Jesus. This testimony about the Met arrests before the Coronation is absolutely damning. It turns out the 3 safety volunteers arrested actually work in partnership with the Met and were wearing hi vis vests with the Met name on them.
The Republic protestors were not allowed to contact the police liaison officer they had been working with who could have confirmed they were following the agreed rules.
And yet the Met spokesman can still sit in front of the committee and say the arress and holding for 16 hours was justified.
Fecking lunacy
So Standard Met Operating procedure
1) Invent some rules on the fly - which turn out to be illegal. 2) Fuck up implementing them egregiously 3) Lie about it 4) Get aggressive about people questioning their lies.
0) Be vigorously in favour and prosecute enthusiastically when the government introduces laws which allow you to arrest people for walking along the street drinking coffee or having too many uncles in their own home.
When our democracy is under attack, it’s up to the labour movement to fight back.
The Public Order Act must be repealed, now.
Jeremy Corbyn yesterday
SKS Labour not a single MP voted to repeal muttering something about letting Fascism bed in
2 pronged attack on Starmer this week from the Corbynite wing. Corbyn attacking Sir Keir over his backing for the POA, McDonnell attacking Sir Keir over his plans to allow more building on greenbelt land if he becomes PM
Thatcher left office in November 1990. We've had 13 years of Labour rule (and not just squeaking into power, but smashing the Tories). Blaming Thatcher for the immigration we've had since that has contributed to a housing shortage is bonkers.
Ongoing clusterfuck in Cherwell (North Oxfordshire district council).
It went to NOC in the locals - Con 20, Lab 12, LD 10, Ind 3, Green 3.
In 2022 the LDs, Greens, and one of the Independents had formed themselves into a group ("Progressive Oxfordshire") which became the second largest group on the council, and hence the official opposition.
After this year's locals, Lab, LD and Green sat down to work out a coalition as they have elsewhere in Oxfordshire (both county and West Oxfordshire district). It's the annual council meeting tonight.
Last night Labour walked out of the talks, apparently complaining that the LibDem/Green group (13 seats) wasn't treating Labour (12 seats) as the senior partner. The issue appears to be that the Labour group leader wants to be leader of the council and the LD/Green group wasn't allowing it.
Labour have said they will try to form a minority administration tonight, which at 12 out of 48 seats is preposterous. So it'll almost certainly become a Con minority administration.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
SKS says hes scrapped his commitment to abolish tuition fees because of the damage thats been done to our economy since he made that pledge
When Starmer made that commitment in 2020 UK general govt debt was 119% of GDP. Now its 104%, he says the country can't afford it now
SKS fans please explain
A large chunk of our government debt is index-linked, and of course floating interest rates have risen significantly. So the interest burden of our national debt is a lot higher now than it was in 2020.
It's also worth remembering that in 2020 the denominator in the debt:GDP calculation plunged because we were in the middle of Covid. And has now (almost) recovered to where it was before. Which is one reason the ratio is lower than 2020.
So the debt burden on the country now is by most measures worse than it was in 2020, and continues to deteriorate as tranches of fixed rate gilts come up for renewal.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver to finance temporary tax cuts Treating government finances as a housewives budget ignoring the multiplier - still around as austerity. A very damaging legacy
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
A fair bit out of date but not sure anything has changed.
The Tory LoonFest seems to be wrapping up today after a procession of gargoyles who are either demented, deluded or both. Some are clearly care in the community cases, but one or two were spouting stuff that was not merely deluded drivel but actually evil.
If that is the beating intellectual heart of today´s Conservative right wingers, I can not help wondering whether the Americans, who presumably paid for much of this demonic bean feast, might be wondering whether their money has been well spent.
In any event I am beginning to think that the Tories could end up being third in the votes cast at the next GE.
As for the by elections. I do not think that the Conservatives will be looking forward to any of them, despite presumably being forewarned ahead of their Lib Dem and Labour opponents.
Is Rishi Sunak an irrelevant Tory nutter - he described China as the UK's biggest long term threat, and promised to close all their Confucius Institutes during his leadership campaign. Huge if true.
Has he delivered ?
And Russia has declared they are in an existential war with the entire Western world.
Given that, a few extra weapons doesn’t sound especially wacky.
I am not complaining about a few extra weapons but the sabre rattling rhetoric from fringe Tories wanting to be noticed.
Just because Russia proclaims something does not mean others have to follow. They have invaded a sovereign nation. Does not mean we should.
No one is suggesting we invade Russia* or China
*I advocate Thermonuclear War with Russia, but not invasion.
No but just because Russia states something, for domestic consumption, does not make it fact. That is the point I am making and politicians ramping up the rhetoric on both China and Russia, primarily for their own self-aggrandisment is really not helpful at all.
Putin hasn't talked about recreating the Russian empire for domestic consumption. He actually wants to do it. And he has no restraint about the means required to achieve the ends. China isn't sabre rattling over Taiwan for domestic consumption. They intend to bring its 23 million people under their power just as they've been prepared to commit genocide against the Uighars. It isn't complicated. There's a reason why India and Japan have started doing joint naval exercises for the first time. It's not to do with us.
Despite my defence of Truss, it's actually quite unrealistic to expect Britain to do much to challenge China's aggressive posture. However, we can and should at the very least: -Ensure that we have reciprocal tariffs wherever China has implemented protectionist measures against our economy -Crack down hard on China's efforts to steal any (remaining) technology or IP from us -Ensure that no Chinese police forces operate on our soil -Commit to selling the Taiwanese anything they may want from us to help defend their Island from invasion, supporting them and benefiting our economy. I think there actually might be some good opportunities for defence collabaration projects, given that we are also an Island that may again need modern defences in the future We can do most of this quietly, without significant diplomatic fuss.
Surely that's impossible without being part of an EU-sized single market?
obsessed
Funny you have not made that comment in response to days and days of anti-Brexit comments by Pro-EU obsessives.
I don't find it especially hilarious. I didn't particularly notice them, but the same applies to them obviously. Especially when they are replying to a post that has absolutely zero relevance to brexit.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
I agree
Build new council homes - but rent caps solve a short term issue while creating a way bigger long term one.
If you want to increase supply quickly ban Short term lets of houses that were built for residential purposes (i.e. have historically had a council tax rating).
Rent cops help some of the people renting now.
They reduce rental market volume - which has been seen in many countries, many times.
The problem is net supply of the properties. The actual type is not the issue. We need more of everything.
Banning short term lets will simply shut down one part of the market - do you mean eliminating AirBnB? If so, then more purpose built short term accommodation will appear.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
Point of order: the Times article says Alister Jack will not be standing down before GenElex so forget D&G. The third resigning MP (besides Nadine Dorries and Alok Sharma) would be Nigel Evans of Ribble Valley:
Easy win this for Starmer. He is playing to his base and saying the right things. He also knows he will probably not have to meet this in govt especially if in a coalition with the NIMBY Lib Dems.
That's what Cameron thought about the EU referendum!
I don't think having a conversation about the green belt is playing to his base as such. It's a possible attempt to have a grown up conversation with the public.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Think about it - you have a property in London. You can have it sit there, earning no money. Or you can easily pay the mortgage by renting it out.
Yes, a few properties are owned by the kind of people who "keep" a place in London, New York etc. But nearly none relative to the size of the housing market.
The "Blocks of empty flats" thing is sold by those who want to believe that no more house building is required (Green thinking), and that the problem can be blamed on Tories and Rich Furinners.
Point of order: the Times article says Alister Jack will not be standing down before GenElex so forget D&G. The third resigning MP (besides Nadine Dorries and Alok Sharma) would be Nigel Evans of Ribble Valley:
The stats suggest this isn’t a byelection for the Tories to fear… although the only time since the Punic Wars that they lost the seat was a previous byelection in 1991:
Yet latest Leger poll of Conservatives 33% to Liberals 32% is almost identical to the 2021 Canadian election result of Conservatives 33.7% and Liberals 32.6%. Main difference is Poilievre has squeezed Bernier's populist PPC party from 5% in 2021 to just 2% now and won back rightwingers to the Conservatives but at the expense of losing a few centrist voters who voted for O'Toole back to Trudeau's Liberals
Dowden tells Rayner 'this comprehensive school boy will not take any lectures from Labour.' Echoes of Howard telling Blair in 2005 'this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy'. Except fell flat as Rayner also went to a comp
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
A fair bit out of date but not sure anything has changed.
Easy win this for Starmer. He is playing to his base and saying the right things. He also knows he will probably not have to meet this in govt especially if in a coalition with the NIMBY Lib Dems.
That's what Cameron thought about the EU referendum!
I don't think having a conversation about the green belt is playing to his base as such. It's a possible attempt to have a grown up conversation with the public.
Many of Labours younger core vote are renters and want homes and home building. It is sending a message to them. Especially when in recent weeks we have had Labour MPs like Rupa Huq proudly being a part of campaigns to stop proposed new builds.
I really don't think a grown up conversation with the public will do any good. There is a clear wedge between those who want homes built and those who want to protect their current asset class.
They disguise it by arguments along the lines of "it is not new homes we are against, we just think they are wrong here, build them elsewhere"
One thing is certain. We need to build more and quickly.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
A fair bit out of date but not sure anything has changed.
Dowden tells Rayner 'this comprehensive school boy will not take any lectures from Labour.' Echoes of Howard telling Blair in 2005 'this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy'. Except fell flat as Rayner also went to a comp
I don't know what it was in relation to (snobbery?) but I've always found that a rather odd defence. John Major went to a state school. Does that mean he ought not to have been lectured by Labour on Black Wednesday, sleaze and arms to Iraq?
The Tory LoonFest seems to be wrapping up today after a procession of gargoyles who are either demented, deluded or both. Some are clearly care in the community cases, but one or two were spouting stuff that was not merely deluded drivel but actually evil.
If that is the beating intellectual heart of today´s Conservative right wingers, I can not help wondering whether the Americans, who presumably paid for much of this demonic bean feast, might be wondering whether their money has been well spent.
In any event I am beginning to think that the Tories could end up being third in the votes cast at the next GE.
As for the by elections. I do not think that the Conservatives will be looking forward to any of them, despite presumably being forewarned ahead of their Lib Dem and Labour opponents.
Is Rishi Sunak an irrelevant Tory nutter - he described China as the UK's biggest long term threat, and promised to close all their Confucius Institutes during his leadership campaign. Huge if true.
Has he delivered ?
And Russia has declared they are in an existential war with the entire Western world.
Given that, a few extra weapons doesn’t sound especially wacky.
I am not complaining about a few extra weapons but the sabre rattling rhetoric from fringe Tories wanting to be noticed.
Just because Russia proclaims something does not mean others have to follow. They have invaded a sovereign nation. Does not mean we should.
No one is suggesting we invade Russia* or China
*I advocate Thermonuclear War with Russia, but not invasion.
No but just because Russia states something, for domestic consumption, does not make it fact. That is the point I am making and politicians ramping up the rhetoric on both China and Russia, primarily for their own self-aggrandisment is really not helpful at all.
Putin hasn't talked about recreating the Russian empire for domestic consumption.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
A fair bit out of date but not sure anything has changed.
Jesus. This testimony about the Met arrests before the Coronation is absolutely damning. It turns out the 3 safety volunteers arrested actually work in partnership with the Met and were wearing hi vis vests with the Met name on them.
The Republic protestors were not allowed to contact the police liaison officer they had been working with who could have confirmed they were following the agreed rules.
And yet the Met spokesman can still sit in front of the committee and say the arress and holding for 16 hours was justified.
Fecking lunacy
Did you hear about the young Australian woman who was locked up for many hours on the day of the coronation just because she happened to be standing next to some protesters? She had specially come over to the UK to celebrate the occasion.
No she hadn't she has lived in the UK for years but the rest of your story is correct she was arrested for 13 hours for the crime of standing next to the wrong person.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Housing: selling off council housing and limiting what councils could do in terms of building housing are central to today’s housing crisis.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
A fair bit out of date but not sure anything has changed.
Jesus. This testimony about the Met arrests before the Coronation is absolutely damning. It turns out the 3 safety volunteers arrested actually work in partnership with the Met and were wearing hi vis vests with the Met name on them.
The Republic protestors were not allowed to contact the police liaison officer they had been working with who could have confirmed they were following the agreed rules.
And yet the Met spokesman can still sit in front of the committee and say the arress and holding for 16 hours was justified.
Fecking lunacy
I wish this was an outlier of the Met Police behaviour, but we all know sadly this typical of their incompetence/arrogance.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Housing: selling off council housing and limiting what councils could do in terms of building housing are central to today’s housing crisis.
Privatisation of utilities too.
There has been far more investment in utilities as a result of privatisation than there would have been had the taxpayer been footing the bill.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
A fair bit out of date but not sure anything has changed.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
She used North Sea revenues to pay for the transition away from heavy industry. Something that was inevitable in the globalised world everyone seems do keen on.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
The point is to build enough that there are slightly more properties than those seeking to buy them.
The idea that some evil people are hoarding all the housing doesn't really work.
As to bedrooms, I think you are confusing some attempts to claim that there are more *rooms* per person. This is mostly due to the massive increase in en-suite bathrooms.
For example, a neighbour is just completely his rip out. His 3 bedroom house is now 4. With 3 ensuite bathrooms. So he has added 4 rooms.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
You can't just leave that hanging there! What's the story?
Thanks to @BJO for the comedy Corbyn pile-on. Will the crank left ever stop pining for their lost loser?
Hush now.
The Cons loons have their NatCon conference and also rail against the decision not to chuck a large number of our existing laws on the bonfire convinced that "one last push" of pure Brexiters will see us reach nirvana.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
I visited Barking Riverside recently, and it was notable how empty the area is at the moment. I don't know why there isn't more urgency in encouraging people to live there.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
She used North Sea revenues to pay for the transition away from heavy industry. Something that was inevitable in the globalised world everyone seems do keen on.
The way the mining communities were destroyed and miners treated could have been done very differently and much less cynically. A narrower legacy, but a deep one too.
You probably won't find too many ex-miners who felt their industry's future was rosy in the early eighties, plus it was difficult, dangerous work that has shortened many lives. Change was inevitable. But it needn't have played out in such a nasty confrontational way.
Everyone's friends The Met of course heavily involved.
Ongoing clusterfuck in Cherwell (North Oxfordshire district council).
It went to NOC in the locals - Con 20, Lab 12, LD 10, Ind 3, Green 3.
In 2022 the LDs, Greens, and one of the Independents had formed themselves into a group ("Progressive Oxfordshire") which became the second largest group on the council, and hence the official opposition.
After this year's locals, Lab, LD and Green sat down to work out a coalition as they have elsewhere in Oxfordshire (both county and West Oxfordshire district). It's the annual council meeting tonight.
Last night Labour walked out of the talks, apparently complaining that the LibDem/Green group (13 seats) wasn't treating Labour (12 seats) as the senior partner. The issue appears to be that the Labour group leader wants to be leader of the council and the LD/Green group wasn't allowing it.
Labour have said they will try to form a minority administration tonight, which at 12 out of 48 seats is preposterous. So it'll almost certainly become a Con minority administration.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Housing: selling off council housing and limiting what councils could do in terms of building housing are central to today’s housing crisis.
Privatisation of utilities too.
There has been far more investment in utilities as a result of privatisation than there would have been had the taxpayer been footing the bill.
What’s your evidence for this statement? Do we see, for example, an underinvestment in water in places like Japan, Canada and Scandinavia? Are they pouring sewage into the seas too?
Recap: Mar 20 - Police make search warrant requests to Crown Office Mar 27 - end of SNP leadership contest. Humza Yousaf - backed by Sturgeon hierarchy - is narrow winner Apr 3 - Crown 'finalises' warrant & it's granted by sheriff Apr 5 - Police raid Sturgeon’s home/SNP HQ….
Differing opinions on whether 2 weeks for Crown (which has been overseeing police probe) to give nod to warrant may signal dragging of heels. Some legal sources say these things are usually turned round quickly, in a day/days. Others say if it's v complex it can take longer
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
Not only do we need to build more homes they need building in the areas where they are needed. So we need to build far more in London and the Far East than we do in, Say North Tyneside or South Tyneside where the population is either static or contracting.
Dowden tells Rayner 'this comprehensive school boy will not take any lectures from Labour.' Echoes of Howard telling Blair in 2005 'this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy'. Except fell flat as Rayner also went to a comp
A weird 'zinger' that, especially given the comp in question was/is selective and in a nice leafy area; he did his A levels and went to Cambridge. Rayner left her comp in a working class bit of Stockport pregnant and without qualifications.
They have taken quite different paths to their respective roles and I might suggest that Ange's has been the trickier.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
What do you expect when the Boomers have pulled up the ladder behind them and all the Conservatives stand for is taxing working people and ensuring Buy To Let landlords get a secure rental income? And HYUFD's favourite of course, ensuring people who are already well off get a nice inheritance, rather than paying their own costs out of their own money.
Previous generations of Conservatives stood for aspiration and by 40 enough people would be homeowners and shareholders and have a stake in the economy that leads people to vote Conservative to keep that secure.
If all Millenials face is a future of paying for others, and debt and the graduate tax and mounting bills - why vote Conservative?
Unless the Conservatives return to being the party of aspiration they deserve to lose. And I will join my cohort in voting against them.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
She used North Sea revenues to pay for the transition away from heavy industry. Something that was inevitable in the globalised world everyone seems do keen on.
The way the mining communities were destroyed and miners treated could have been done very differently and much less cynically. A narrower legacy, but a deep one too.
You probably won't find too many ex-miners who felt their industry's future was rosy in the early eighties, plus it was difficult, dangerous work that has shortened many lives. Change was inevitable. But it needn't have played out in such a nasty confrontational way.
Everyone's friends The Met of course heavily involved.
Oh I agree. Though coming from Nottinghamshire my view is that the miners were caught between two political ideologies trying to destroy each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the North Sea tax revenues were used for a necessary purpose rather than the claims they were wasted on tax cuts.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
I'm 42 so kind of between Gen X and Millennial, but I've defo gone further left as I've got older (economically speaking; I've always been socially liberal).
I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
I'm 42 so kind of between Gen X and Millennial, but I've defo gone further left as I've got older (economically speaking; I've always been socially liberal).
I think I have become slightly more right wing economically over time, but never more turned off by the right wing parties than the last few years. I suspect it is the current iteration of the right wing parties who are the variable here rather than Millenials.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
She used North Sea revenues to pay for the transition away from heavy industry. Something that was inevitable in the globalised world everyone seems do keen on.
The way the mining communities were destroyed and miners treated could have been done very differently and much less cynically. A narrower legacy, but a deep one too.
You probably won't find too many ex-miners who felt their industry's future was rosy in the early eighties, plus it was difficult, dangerous work that has shortened many lives. Change was inevitable. But it needn't have played out in such a nasty confrontational way.
Everyone's friends The Met of course heavily involved.
Oh I agree. Though coming from Nottinghamshire my view is that the miners were caught between two political ideologies trying to destroy each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the North Sea tax revenues were used for a necessary purpose rather than the claims they were wasted on tax cuts.
Am from just over the border to the north of you, so yeah agree on actual miners being caught between ideologies. Regardless, the Tories treated them all as 'enemies within' and left the old pit villages to rot. Did you watch Sherwood, by the way? I thought it was great (despite some quite odd plot points).
I wasn't really making a point about the north sea revenues tbh, so fair enough.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
What do you expect when the Boomers have pulled up the ladder behind them and all the Conservatives stand for is taxing working people and ensuring Buy To Let landlords get a secure rental income? And HYUFD's favourite of course, ensuring people who are already well off get a nice inheritance, rather than paying their own costs out of their own money.
Previous generations of Conservatives stood for aspiration and by 40 enough people would be homeowners and shareholders and have a stake in the economy that leads people to vote Conservative to keep that secure.
If all Millenials face is a future of paying for others, and debt and the graduate tax and mounting bills - why vote Conservative?
Unless the Conservatives return to being the party of aspiration they deserve to lose. And I will join my cohort in voting against them.
They may be repeating the mistakes of the IDS years. They’ll work it out in the end and in the meantime well deserved opposition beckons.
I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes. I'm not Darren Grimes.
Miss Vance, isn't that a slightly distorted picture, given life expectancy being so long now?
An ageing population and the oldest being more on the right shifts the national average ever more to the right, so if the Millennial generation is on the same path (in absolute terms) this will show up as being more left wing just because everyone else is further to the right.
That may not explain the discrepancy entirely but will have an impact and make the 'default' for the Millennials being more left than right.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Dowden tells Rayner 'this comprehensive school boy will not take any lectures from Labour.' Echoes of Howard telling Blair in 2005 'this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy'. Except fell flat as Rayner also went to a comp
A weird 'zinger' that, especially given the comp in question was/is selective and in a nice leafy area; he did his A levels and went to Cambridge. Rayner left her comp in a working class bit of Stockport pregnant and without qualifications.
They have taken quite different paths to their respective roles and I might suggest that Ange's has been the trickier.
Not to mention that Rayner had already opened with her "now the PM has a working class friend" joke.
Thanks to @BJO for the comedy Corbyn pile-on. Will the crank left ever stop pining for their lost loser?
Hush now.
The Cons loons have their NatCon conference and also rail against the decision not to chuck a large number of our existing laws on the bonfire convinced that "one last push" of pure Brexiters will see us reach nirvana.
So why shouldn't the Left have the same.
Last push? That's a joke. Nothing has been repealed whatsoever so far, and the ones that Kemi has lined up for the so called chop are things like laws concerning the 2020 Olympics. First push would be nice.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
She used North Sea revenues to pay for the transition away from heavy industry. Something that was inevitable in the globalised world everyone seems do keen on.
The way the mining communities were destroyed and miners treated could have been done very differently and much less cynically. A narrower legacy, but a deep one too.
You probably won't find too many ex-miners who felt their industry's future was rosy in the early eighties, plus it was difficult, dangerous work that has shortened many lives. Change was inevitable. But it needn't have played out in such a nasty confrontational way.
Everyone's friends The Met of course heavily involved.
Oh I agree. Though coming from Nottinghamshire my view is that the miners were caught between two political ideologies trying to destroy each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the North Sea tax revenues were used for a necessary purpose rather than the claims they were wasted on tax cuts.
Am from just over the border to the north of you, so yeah agree on actual miners being caught between ideologies. Regardless, the Tories treated them all as 'enemies within' and left the old pit villages to rot. Did you watch Sherwood, by the way? I thought it was great (despite some quite odd plot points).
I wasn't really making a point about the north sea revenues tbh, so fair enough.
As I've mentioned many times, the tragedy for me is that the SDP didn't win that 1983 election, because of the Falklands. The Liberals and Social Democrats would have handled all these post-industrial issues much more gradually and humanely.
If Shirley Williams, David Owen et al had taken over in the '80s, we'd likely be living in a much more socially integrated and harmonious country now , and probably also one that had not dumbed down its broadcasting and public culture to quite the same extent.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
What do you expect when the Boomers have pulled up the ladder behind them and all the Conservatives stand for is taxing working people and ensuring Buy To Let landlords get a secure rental income? And HYUFD's favourite of course, ensuring people who are already well off get a nice inheritance, rather than paying their own costs out of their own money.
Previous generations of Conservatives stood for aspiration and by 40 enough people would be homeowners and shareholders and have a stake in the economy that leads people to vote Conservative to keep that secure.
If all Millenials face is a future of paying for others, and debt and the graduate tax and mounting bills - why vote Conservative?
Unless the Conservatives return to being the party of aspiration they deserve to lose. And I will join my cohort in voting against them.
I do not normally have much time for the political debate slot on GMB, which is on when we have breakfast, but Ayesha Hazarika made the point that you have to give young people a stake in society otherwise they will be disengaged from it. Why should they buy into a capitalist model when it does not work for them and they have no capital.
I agree.
You can blame boomers all you like. This is a failure of politicians across all divides. Politicians could easily have enforced more home building. They happily ignore the voters when it suits them.
The Tories were, at least, prepared to relax planning rules yet after the drubbing in Chesham and Amersham on the back of a very NIMBY Lib Dem campaign this was totally rowed back. The very people who thought this was a great result because it gave the Tories a bloody nose have been the ones harmed by it and the impact of it on policy.
Starmer will do and say whatever anyone wants him to do or say at the time in order to get to No 10.
Sadly true.
Worked for Blair, though, didn't it? Spectacularly, if I recall.
This applies to every potential and would be PM I think ?
I'd probably have May at the back of this list as she was prepared to try and take unpopular decisions whilst in the seat of power (Dementia tax, May's deal) at the expense of personal political capital. From most power hungry to least I'd go (PMs and LOTOs since 1992)
Truss > Johnson > Miliband > Sunak > Brown > Blair > Starmer = Cameron > Major > Corbyn > Hague = IDS = Smith > Howard > May.
I notice you stop just in time to leave Margaret Thatcher off that list, the one PM in my lifetime who had a strategy, was open about it, stuck to it, and generally only retreated for tactical purposes.
I'd quibble with quite a few of those. For instance, I'd say Blair is much less principled than Sunak, who wasn't willing to make the promises that might have caused him to beat Truss. Brown was so incoherent as PM that I've no idea what he actually believed, and I'm not sure he knew himself. Johnson I think delivered broadly what he said he would - NI increase apart - and what he said when he described himself as a Brexity Hezza.
However, an interesting list.
I wasn't born when Thatcher came to power so I don't know where to place her really in this particular list. Higher up if you believe the Crown's portrayal of her was somewhere near accurate. But maybe it wasn't - in which case she'd be more middling.
In terms of election campaigns, they tended to be negative attacks on Labour, rather than particular promises - though it was fairly clear where she was coming from.
As far as her achievements go, she successfully addressed a number of problems left by previous government, and is at the root of many of the problems we have today. A mixed bag.
Which problems today is she at the root at?
Wasting North Sea Oil assets on tax cuts. Selling the family silver
I think the attack line is that she wasted oil revenues on unemployment benefits as unemployment soared. Thatcher's tax cuts were generally successful at generating revenue and well-received.
She used North Sea revenues to pay for the transition away from heavy industry. Something that was inevitable in the globalised world everyone seems do keen on.
The way the mining communities were destroyed and miners treated could have been done very differently and much less cynically. A narrower legacy, but a deep one too.
You probably won't find too many ex-miners who felt their industry's future was rosy in the early eighties, plus it was difficult, dangerous work that has shortened many lives. Change was inevitable. But it needn't have played out in such a nasty confrontational way.
Everyone's friends The Met of course heavily involved.
Oh I agree. Though coming from Nottinghamshire my view is that the miners were caught between two political ideologies trying to destroy each other. But that doesn't change the fact that the North Sea tax revenues were used for a necessary purpose rather than the claims they were wasted on tax cuts.
Am from just over the border to the north of you, so yeah agree on actual miners being caught between ideologies. Regardless, the Tories treated them all as 'enemies within' and left the old pit villages to rot. Did you watch Sherwood, by the way? I thought it was great (despite some quite odd plot points).
I wasn't really making a point about the north sea revenues tbh, so fair enough.
I don't really watch much drama so no missed it. I have to say that in Nottinghamshire at least the investment in the old pit towns and villages was very good. One of the reasons I think why so many of them drifted towards the Tories over the years. 2019 was just the last step in a long term drift to the right amongst the mining communities here which started back in the 90s.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Very few but very valuable. Foreign buyers owning multi-million pound houses that are left empty is a known factor. Unless you plan to convert them all into small flats, it is largely irrelevant.
Dowden tells Rayner 'this comprehensive school boy will not take any lectures from Labour.' Echoes of Howard telling Blair in 2005 'this grammar school boy will take no lessons from that public school boy'. Except fell flat as Rayner also went to a comp
A weird 'zinger' that, especially given the comp in question was/is selective and in a nice leafy area; he did his A levels and went to Cambridge. Rayner left her comp in a working class bit of Stockport pregnant and without qualifications.
They have taken quite different paths to their respective roles and I might suggest that Ange's has been the trickier.
Not to mention that Rayner had already opened with her "now the PM has a working class friend" joke.
What a cracking gag. The laughter guzzler would be proud.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
Not only do we need to build more homes they need building in the areas where they are needed. So we need to build far more in London and the Far East than we do in, Say North Tyneside or South Tyneside where the population is either static or contracting.
Wouldn't say it's contracting anywhere in the North East - what is happening however is that new houses are being built at a rate that has kept supply consistent so we haven't seen the insane price rises that have occurred down south.
Recap: Mar 20 - Police make search warrant requests to Crown Office Mar 27 - end of SNP leadership contest. Humza Yousaf - backed by Sturgeon hierarchy - is narrow winner Apr 3 - Crown 'finalises' warrant & it's granted by sheriff Apr 5 - Police raid Sturgeon’s home/SNP HQ….
Differing opinions on whether 2 weeks for Crown (which has been overseeing police probe) to give nod to warrant may signal dragging of heels. Some legal sources say these things are usually turned round quickly, in a day/days. Others say if it's v complex it can take longer
Given the complexity of the case and the people likely to be arrested I'm not surprised it took so long as it probably kept on getting kicked up to the next senior person at the Crown Office.
You saw it with cash for honours.
IIRC every time Blair was questioned it had to be reviewed simply because of the seismic fallout if the police et al had got it wrong.
Oliver Dowden says it’s “all lovey dovey” between Starmer & Rayner and they turn it on for the cameras but that “as soon as they’re off, it’s a different story”. He adds: “They’re the Phil and Holly of British politics”.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Very few but very valuable. Foreign buyers owning multi-million pound houses that are left empty is a known factor. Unless you plan to convert them all into small flats, it is largely irrelevant.
I don't think that is true. Just look at the table in the Mail article. Unoccupied properties vary between 8 and 30% for the inner London boroughs listed. That is based on numbers of properties, not their value.
More in Common are an organisation set up after the murder of Jo Cox, quoting her maiden speech which she said 'We are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.'
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
Britain has more bedrooms per capita than ever before. One problem is that a lot of these bedrooms are empty - my Dad lives in a South London house with five bedrooms and only my step-mother for company.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
Not only do we need to build more homes they need building in the areas where they are needed. So we need to build far more in London and the Far East than we do in, Say North Tyneside or South Tyneside where the population is either static or contracting.
Wouldn't say it's contracting anywhere in the North East - what is happening however is that new houses are being built at a rate that has kept supply consistent so we haven't seen the insane price rises that have occurred down south.
I was wrong about North Tyneside, it grew, but it is contracting in some areas, although you are absolutely right about supply and demand being pretty much in balance which has kept prices sane round here.
"Gateshead saw a 2.1 per cent decline, Sunderland a 0.5 per cent drop and South Tyneside recorded a 0.2 per cent decrease in population."
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Very few but very valuable. Foreign buyers owning multi-million pound houses that are left empty is a known factor. Unless you plan to convert them all into small flats, it is largely irrelevant.
Indeed. The problem in this country is that too many people view houses as assets, or incomes, instead of liabilities.
In a healthy economy houses should be treated as liabilities that people need to pay maintenance for to have somewhere to live, not an "investment".
Property inflation should be considered harmful, not a positive, like any other inflation. And falling prices should be treated the same as any other deflation if petrol, bread, milk or electronic prices fall.
The broken housing system encourages both people domestically, and abroad, to treat the housing stock as an investment rather than a liability for having a roof over someone's head.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Very few but very valuable. Foreign buyers owning multi-million pound houses that are left empty is a known factor. Unless you plan to convert them all into small flats, it is largely irrelevant.
I don't think that is true. Just look at the table in the Mail article. Unoccupied properties vary between 8 and 30% for the inner London boroughs listed. That is based on numbers of properties, not their value.
Its a significant problem in super prime areas for sure. Small problem at prime level. Insignificant at Joe Average and below.
This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Very few but very valuable. Foreign buyers owning multi-million pound houses that are left empty is a known factor. Unless you plan to convert them all into small flats, it is largely irrelevant.
I don't think that is true. Just look at the table in the Mail article. Unoccupied properties vary between 8 and 30% for the inner London boroughs listed. That is based on numbers of properties, not their value.
Its a significant problem in super prime areas for sure. Small problem at prime level. Insignificant at Joe Average and below.
Build more houses 'in the view' of those houses that are empty, if there's space to do so, and you can kill two birds with one stone. Get more houses built to be on the market, and maybe burn those who are hoarding property and get those houses back on the market too.
Build new council homes, introduce rent caps and end the scourge of empty homes.
We need housing for public good, not private profit.
= Jeremy Corbyn this morning
Rental caps have very mixed results - they tend to create cliff edges in the market
We have a much lower rate of empty homes in the UK than just about anywhere else, not surprisingly given the shortage of housing and the price of property.
What we need much more supply. Doesn't matter if it's multi-million pound penthouses or social housing, because the price of property is driven by supply vs demand, pure and simple. And we need most new supply in locations where it's currently lowest or demand is highest.
In London, for example, there are 34K empty properties. Out of 3.7 million properties.
So literally 99% occupancy.
What do we mean by empty? Aren't there homes all across the plushest areas of London bought for investment with no-one there.
Very few by international standards. There will always be some redundancy in any sort of capital stock. But redundancy in housing isn't the silver bullet here - the scale of the issue is too small to justify swingeing intervention (and bureaucracy) needed to fill up the few empty homes.
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
Very few but very valuable. Foreign buyers owning multi-million pound houses that are left empty is a known factor. Unless you plan to convert them all into small flats, it is largely irrelevant.
I don't think that is true. Just look at the table in the Mail article. Unoccupied properties vary between 8 and 30% for the inner London boroughs listed. That is based on numbers of properties, not their value.
Still very few by international standards - see article attached (which argues we need MORE empty homes):
Second lowest rate in Europe after Poland apparently.
Drive around rural France and Italy and you're assailed by whole villages of empty and abandoned houses, some still maintained and others crumbling slowly into ruins. Even whole small towns in parts of the mezzogiorno. Empty homes are a result of too much supply and not enough demand. We have the opposite problem.
Comments
Disclosure: my parents purchased their council house.
What beggared councils was the Treasury taking most of the proceeds and using it towards funding tax cuts. And limiting the amount of the balance councils were allowed to reinvest in new housing stock.
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1658734353810071556?s=20
https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1658769346603233281?s=20
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/starmer-calls-for-discussion-about-building-on-green-belt/ar-AA1bhPEp?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=54413b0a0de8461b88d3fb69d4fe6651&ei=8
WIthout private companies building homes we would have far fewer properties built.
Profit is not a dirty word, or should not be.
"...Why David: I haven't seen you since I left you out to dry in that interview! How are you doing?"
"I lost my job you overindulged little shit. Have you ever done any actual work ever?"
"I'm doing great: I left my Twitter account for a job with GBNews!"
"So your readership dropped, then..."
When Starmer made that commitment in 2020 UK general govt debt was 119% of GDP. Now its 104%, he says the country can't afford it now
SKS fans please explain
She actually started out quite constructively, but then inspired her devotees to go to war with Europe. You can't really say she was solely, or even primarily responsible for what's happened since, though.
We need 6 million Council Houses to replace the ones Thatcher gave away as a GE winning bribe
It went to NOC in the locals - Con 20, Lab 12, LD 10, Ind 3, Green 3.
In 2022 the LDs, Greens, and one of the Independents had formed themselves into a group ("Progressive Oxfordshire") which became the second largest group on the council, and hence the official opposition.
After this year's locals, Lab, LD and Green sat down to work out a coalition as they have elsewhere in Oxfordshire (both county and West Oxfordshire district). It's the annual council meeting tonight.
Last night Labour walked out of the talks, apparently complaining that the LibDem/Green group (13 seats) wasn't treating Labour (12 seats) as the senior partner. The issue appears to be that the Labour group leader wants to be leader of the council and the LD/Green group wasn't allowing it.
Labour have said they will try to form a minority administration tonight, which at 12 out of 48 seats is preposterous. So it'll almost certainly become a Con minority administration.
It's also worth remembering that in 2020 the denominator in the debt:GDP calculation plunged because we were in the middle of Covid. And has now (almost) recovered to where it was before. Which is one reason the ratio is lower than 2020.
So the debt burden on the country now is by most measures worse than it was in 2020, and continues to deteriorate as tranches of fixed rate gilts come up for renewal.
Selling the family silver to finance temporary tax cuts
Treating government finances as a housewives budget ignoring the multiplier - still around as austerity.
A very damaging legacy
https://thetab.com/2016/02/03/someone-who-has-seen-the-shard-apartments-says-they-are-extraordinary-and-empty-70378
-Ensure that we have reciprocal tariffs wherever China has implemented protectionist measures against our economy
-Crack down hard on China's efforts to steal any (remaining) technology or IP from us
-Ensure that no Chinese police forces operate on our soil
-Commit to selling the Taiwanese anything they may want from us to help defend their Island from invasion, supporting them and benefiting our economy. I think there actually might be some good opportunities for defence collabaration projects, given that we are also an Island that may again need modern defences in the future
We can do most of this quietly, without significant diplomatic fuss.
In the past 10 years councils have averaged building around 1,400 homes a year. This is due to a number of Government restrictions
https://338canada.com/
Just need to build more units. And more infrastructure to support them.
They reduce rental market volume - which has been seen in many countries, many times.
The problem is net supply of the properties. The actual type is not the issue. We need more of everything.
Banning short term lets will simply shut down one part of the market - do you mean eliminating AirBnB? If so, then more purpose built short term accommodation will appear.
I don't think having a conversation about the green belt is playing to his base as such. It's a possible attempt to have a grown up conversation with the public.
Yes, a few properties are owned by the kind of people who "keep" a place in London, New York etc. But nearly none relative to the size of the housing market.
The "Blocks of empty flats" thing is sold by those who want to believe that no more house building is required (Green thinking), and that the problem can be blamed on Tories and Rich Furinners.
https://legermarketing.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Legers-North-American-Tracker-May-8th-2023.pdf
I really don't think a grown up conversation with the public will do any good. There is a clear wedge between those who want homes built and those who want to protect their current asset class.
They disguise it by arguments along the lines of "it is not new homes we are against, we just think they are wrong here, build them elsewhere"
One thing is certain. We need to build more and quickly.
https://twitter.com/F1/status/1658793544918679553
Looking at pictures of the weather that's hit them, I think it makes sense. I hope everyone keeps safe. A good decision by the FIA.
Privatisation of utilities too.
The only members of either of their extended families who lives more than an hour away is me and my daughter - and we will now never stay with them again when visiting London because they still refuse to let people lock the bathroom doors.
Occupancy is a lot lower than 99%.
People might be a bit more understanding about building new houses if they thought the people who needed the houses would be able to buy them, but it's likely we'd see any large expansion of the housing stock resulting in those most able to afford to continue to hoard most of the additional housing.
They exist, and are empty, but not for sale.
The idea that some evil people are hoarding all the housing doesn't really work.
As to bedrooms, I think you are confusing some attempts to claim that there are more *rooms* per person. This is mostly due to the massive increase in en-suite bathrooms.
For example, a neighbour is just completely his rip out. His 3 bedroom house is now 4. With 3 ensuite bathrooms. So he has added 4 rooms.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/may/17/vauxhall-carmaker-bosses-to-meet-business-secretary-to-discuss-claims-brexit-rules-threaten-industry-bcc-conference-business-live
I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true.
https://twitter.com/DrDavidJeffery/status/1658775407389208577?s=20
The Cons loons have their NatCon conference and also rail against the decision not to chuck a large number of our existing laws on the bonfire convinced that "one last push" of pure Brexiters will see us reach nirvana.
So why shouldn't the Left have the same.
You probably won't find too many ex-miners who felt their industry's future was rosy in the early eighties, plus it was difficult, dangerous work that has shortened many lives. Change was inevitable. But it needn't have played out in such a nasty confrontational way.
Everyone's friends The Met of course heavily involved.
If your USP is being Loony, who can be more Loony than Dorries?
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1658795066733780993?s=20
Recap:
Mar 20 - Police make search warrant requests to Crown Office
Mar 27 - end of SNP leadership contest. Humza Yousaf - backed by Sturgeon hierarchy - is narrow winner
Apr 3 - Crown 'finalises' warrant & it's granted by sheriff
Apr 5 - Police raid Sturgeon’s home/SNP HQ….
Differing opinions on whether 2 weeks for Crown (which has been overseeing police probe) to give nod to warrant may signal dragging of heels. Some legal sources say these things are usually turned round quickly, in a day/days. Others say if it's v complex it can take longer
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1658754714345914369?s=20
They have taken quite different paths to their respective roles and I might suggest that Ange's has been the trickier.
Previous generations of Conservatives stood for aspiration and by 40 enough people would be homeowners and shareholders and have a stake in the economy that leads people to vote Conservative to keep that secure.
If all Millenials face is a future of paying for others, and debt and the graduate tax and mounting bills - why vote Conservative?
Unless the Conservatives return to being the party of aspiration they deserve to lose. And I will join my cohort in voting against them.
I wasn't really making a point about the north sea revenues tbh, so fair enough.
An ageing population and the oldest being more on the right shifts the national average ever more to the right, so if the Millennial generation is on the same path (in absolute terms) this will show up as being more left wing just because everyone else is further to the right.
That may not explain the discrepancy entirely but will have an impact and make the 'default' for the Millennials being more left than right.
https://www.cityam.com/15bn-worth-of-london-homes-sit-empty-as-londoners-squabble-over-supply/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-11973211/Londons-homes-65-properties-plush-city-centre-unoccupied.html
I'll say it again, becoming a homeowner begets Tory voters but the party is so NIMBY.
Stats for Lefties 🏳️⚧️
@LeftieStats
·
20h
🚨 NEW: Labour lead drop to just 11pts (-3)
🔴 LAB 42% (-2)
🔵 CON 31% (+1)
🟠 LD 13% (+3)
🟢 GRN 5% (-1)
🟣 REF 5% (-)
🟡 SNP 3% (-)
Labour majority of 34 seats.
Via
@Moreincommon_
, 12-15 May (+/- vs 6-11 Apr)
If Shirley Williams, David Owen et al had taken over in the '80s, we'd likely be living in a much more socially integrated and harmonious country now , and probably also one that had not dumbed down its broadcasting and public culture to quite the same extent.
I agree.
You can blame boomers all you like. This is a failure of politicians across all divides. Politicians could easily have enforced more home building. They happily ignore the voters when it suits them.
The Tories were, at least, prepared to relax planning rules yet after the drubbing in Chesham and Amersham on the back of a very NIMBY Lib Dem campaign this was totally rowed back. The very people who thought this was a great result because it gave the Tories a bloody nose have been the ones harmed by it and the impact of it on policy.
Given the complexity of the case and the people likely to be arrested I'm not surprised it took so long as it probably kept on getting kicked up to the next senior person at the Crown Office.
You saw it with cash for honours.
IIRC every time Blair was questioned it had to be reviewed simply because of the seismic fallout if the police et al had got it wrong.
They don't do voodoo polling.
"Gateshead saw a 2.1 per cent decline, Sunderland a 0.5 per cent drop and South Tyneside recorded a 0.2 per cent decrease in population."
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/20241249.uk-census-2021-data-reveals-north-east-population-changes/
In a healthy economy houses should be treated as liabilities that people need to pay maintenance for to have somewhere to live, not an "investment".
Property inflation should be considered harmful, not a positive, like any other inflation. And falling prices should be treated the same as any other deflation if petrol, bread, milk or electronic prices fall.
The broken housing system encourages both people domestically, and abroad, to treat the housing stock as an investment rather than a liability for having a roof over someone's head.
Build. Loads. More. Houses.
https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/why-we-need-more-empty-homes-to-end-the-housing-crisis/
Second lowest rate in Europe after Poland apparently.
Drive around rural France and Italy and you're assailed by whole villages of empty and abandoned houses, some still maintained and others crumbling slowly into ruins. Even whole small towns in parts of the mezzogiorno. Empty homes are a result of too much supply and not enough demand. We have the opposite problem.