Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

This trend look very worrying for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,889
edited May 2023 in General
This trend look very worrying for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

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. pic.twitter.com/Ia52OBcIJN

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    Shocked.

    OpenAI’s Losses Doubled to $540 Million as It Developed ChatGPT

    OpenAI’s losses roughly doubled to around $540 million last year as it developed ChatGPT and hired key employees from Google, according to three people with knowledge of the startup’s financials. The previously unreported figure reflects the steep costs of training its machine-learning models during the period before it started selling access to the chatbot.

    Even as revenue has picked up—reaching an annual pace of hundreds of millions of dollars just weeks after OpenAI launched a paid version of the chatbot in February—those costs are likely to keep rising as more customers use its artificial intelligence technology and the company trains future versions of the software.


    https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openais-losses-doubled-to-540-million-as-it-developed-chatgpt?utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=Article,Archival+Project&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_source=twitter
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,910
    This is what happens when your brand of populism isn't popular.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    Isn't that curve potentially showing that millennials are about to follow the path of Gen X, just from a slightly lower starting point and a bit later?

    I bet so much of this is related to house and car ownership. Those who aren't owners go socialist.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    Hang on, I thought Woke was a distraction and no-one cares about it?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,924
    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,534
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    I hope you're not suggesting that I am a normal person!
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,551

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Hard to tell; there's not much left to sell off, let alone at a discount.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    I hope you're not suggesting that I am a normal person!
    If you start talking about efficient use of bed spaces it starts with you have a spare room you should rent out because you only have friends and family visit occasionally and then descends on a slope to you could fit bunk beds in your own bedroom and as you are single you should share
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build more houses and sell them at cost.

    Make it easier to get a mortgage, not Northern Rock style, but if you've been able to pay your rent of £750 a month to your landlord for 4 months without fail, it means you're good for a mortgage payment at that level.

    Also look at 40 year mortgages, if you're 25-30 then you're looking to be working until you're 70.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build more houses and sell them at cost.

    Make it easier to get a mortgage, not Northern Rock style, but if you've been able to pay your rent of £750 a month to your landlord for 4 months without fail, it means you're good for a mortgage payment at that level.

    Also look at 40 year mortgages, if you're 25-30 then you're looking to be working until you're 70.
    and cancel all student uni fee debt
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,704

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,878

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    I thought this generation of young people was supposed to be less materialistic? More interested in experiences than owning things. Maybe that wasn't right.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build more houses and sell them at cost.

    Make it easier to get a mortgage, not Northern Rock style, but if you've been able to pay your rent of £750 a month to your landlord for 4 months without fail, it means you're good for a mortgage payment at that level.

    Also look at 40 year mortgages, if you're 25-30 then you're looking to be working until you're 70.
    and cancel all student uni fee debt
    Yeah, I'd change the approach to student fees.

    Have that difficult conversation that only a third of people should go to university.

    My policy would be to make fees free for people studying STEM, history, and law because they are the worthy/noble degrees.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
    It's also a national tragedy that a generation is growing up that cant aspire to the joy of having their own teenage kids. That really shifts opinions.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,534
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    You can interpret it as a suggestion that empty nesters should downsize and make family homes available for families who need the space.

    A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,704
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    I thought this generation of young people was supposed to be less materialistic? More interested in experiences than owning things. Maybe that wasn't right.
    It's not materialism to think that paying a fortune to rent rubbish housing with no end in sight is a bad thing. People want better and more afforable housing, be that renting or purchasing. The supply in the UK is out of whack.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,612
    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    It's quite patronising to see people like Suella Braverman as agents of white male privilege.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    You used the p-word without a trigger warning.
    Yes, I know it irritates. Usually stay clear for that very reason but it slipped out there.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 116,671
    edited May 2023

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
    It's also a national tragedy that a generation is growing up that cant aspire to the joy of having their own teenage kids. That really shifts opinions.
    Indeed, having kids changes your life, I got all my speeding points prior to fatherhood.

    I had an epiphany recently, that this generation will not be able to retire because they need to keep working to pay rent.

    That upset me.

    I'm one of the lucky ones in life (as are my kids) but not everyone will be able to rely on the bank of mum and dad.

    Nor will they be able to plan their lives on getting an inheritance when they are 50.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    You can interpret it as a suggestion that empty nesters should downsize and make family homes available for families who need the space.

    A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
    I am single I have a 3 bedroom house. I use it though one bedroom is mostly used only during the summer for friends and family. I value friends and family being able to visit and not need to pay through the nose for hotels. Why is that an issue if I don't want to downsize?
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 61,154
    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    Fpt @Farooq
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    I thought this generation of young people was supposed to be less materialistic? More interested in experiences than owning things. Maybe that wasn't right.
    I have yet to work out if the generation in question is the most generous ever or the most stupid. They continually back policies which are not in their own interest . Who can say ?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Well I have to goto the office in central london next wednesday so.....
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
    It's also a national tragedy that a generation is growing up that cant aspire to the joy of having their own teenage kids. That really shifts opinions.
    Indeed, having kids changes your life, I got all my speeding points prior to fatherhood.

    I had an epiphany recently, that this generation will not be able to retire because they need to keep working to pay rent.

    That upset me.

    I'm one of the lucky ones in life (as are my kids) but not everyone will be able to rely on the bank of mum and dad.

    Nor will they be able to plan their lives on getting an inheritance when they are 50.
    Its a tough one increasingly now its look after the kids and the oldies. The money just burns you at both ends. Predictions of walls of money passing down stream are of course correct, but it just might be passing to a retirement home rather than your family.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    Starmer seems to be trying to piss off quite a few people and shouldn’t assume that the anti Tory feeling is rock solid .

    The key to getting elected is not to give open goals to the Tories and not to alienate voters.

    The last week has been a series of own goals . From the voting debacle and now this housing policy .

    This also causes problems for the Lib Dems in those Tory Lib Dem marginals . Corbyn proved toxic and allowed those softer Tories to stick with them rather than vote Lib Dem .

    Even if the green belt policy is very limited most of the public don’t do nuance . If you have to explain a policy to mitigate its electoral damage then you’ve failed already .

    Starmer needs to get a grip and stop putting hurdles in place . It would be unforgivable to give the Tories a helping hand .

    His current what seems hubris needs to end .




  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,859
    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    He hasn't had to do much. He's benefitting from the context created by Johnson's support for Ukraine, aided by not being Boris Johnson.
    That's a fair summary.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,859
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 24,531
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    And why should they, its not as if the UK can do a lot to influence temperatures.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219
    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,219
    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Do you ever go to the Flask?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
    When has any government whether red or blue not used the cosh of disincentives rather than incentives are politicians only believe in the stick, carrots are like unicorns to them
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,059

    Shocked.

    OpenAI’s Losses Doubled to $540 Million as It Developed ChatGPT

    OpenAI’s losses roughly doubled to around $540 million last year as it developed ChatGPT and hired key employees from Google, according to three people with knowledge of the startup’s financials. The previously unreported figure reflects the steep costs of training its machine-learning models during the period before it started selling access to the chatbot.

    Even as revenue has picked up—reaching an annual pace of hundreds of millions of dollars just weeks after OpenAI launched a paid version of the chatbot in February—those costs are likely to keep rising as more customers use its artificial intelligence technology and the company trains future versions of the software.


    https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openais-losses-doubled-to-540-million-as-it-developed-chatgpt?utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=Article,Archival+Project&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_source=twitter

    It's startling how quickly the AI sh*ts are going down the traditional tech route. Use commons to create a business, then when you've done that, try to legislate to prevent new entrants. Usually it takes a decade or more for them to go from marketable product to legislation; they're doing it now.

    Sadly, for presumably intelligent people, they're avoiding the big question: why they did not realise these suppose dangers *before* they developed their product? And it the dangers are true, why don't they restrict access to it, or destroy their product?

    Charlatans.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
    We should somehow try to convince them to abandon such plans and make them keep their poor in their existing mud huts and tenements.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    edited May 2023
    Is this so concerning for the Tories? The median voter in both the US and UK now is a 50 year old not a 30 year old. The Tories haven't won 18-40s since Cameron in 2010 but have won 3 general elections since. The Republicans haven't won 18-40s since George W Bush in 2000 but have won 2 presidential elections since and multiple Congressional elections.

    In an ideal world more 30-40s would get on the housing ladder, own property and become conservative (though see the huge opposition to greenbelt developments in that Yougov poll today, Starmer is taking a big risk pushing that). However the Conservatives can win losing under 40s, indeed they can even win a landslide victory losing most under 40s as Boris proved in 2019, when the age more voters voted Conservative than Labour was as high as 39
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,859
    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
    We should somehow try to convince them to abandon such plans and make them keep their poor in their existing mud huts and tenements.
    Simple fact no nation is really going to go net zero because they know to try will end up in a popular uprising as no one anywhere will accept a decrease in what they feel they are owed as a living standard
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,704
    Farooq said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
    I'm going with the "profoundly stupid" as they haven't said anything to disuade me from that view.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,859
    glw said:

    Farooq said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
    I'm going with the "profoundly stupid" as they haven't said anything to disuade me from that view.
    The two are not mutually exclusive tbf
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Do you ever go to the Flask?
    There is a far better place not a million miles from the Flask which is where you will find all Hampstead champagne socialists hanging out.

    Sadly for you I won't name it but it is a special corner of heaven on earth.
  • Options
    pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,753

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    I'm not so sure. Is the Nimby Alliance quite that vast and unconquerable, or are a lot of these people merely expressing their distaste at the stereotypical image of green belt development - i.e. of ancient growth forests being felled and bucolic pastoral landscapes being concreted over to make room for Barratt boxes?

    The reality of the "Green" Belt is often very different indeed.

    Besides, Starmer isn't going to win power by appeasing selfish old fucks who care only about keeping house prices on a constant upwards trajectory. His basic pitch needs to be that the current dispensation delivers for practically no-one under the age of 50 and that it needs to be swept away.

    I mean, don't get me wrong, I won't even begin to believe that Labour will deliver urgently needed homes on the required scale until I at least see realistic policies which demonstrate that it has a believable path to achieving this (and that the party is, therefore, prepared to upset a lot of voters with vested interests in order to do it,) but the "builders versus blockers" rhetoric that Starmer has employed offers at least a glimmer of light in the pitch darkness of the nation's spiralling housing disaster. Perhaps he's actually prepared to do something meaningful to address the problem after all?
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,859
    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    edited May 2023

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    Is not what I said. I said stop catastrophising. Talk of climate change-driven "famines and wars" while still a common trope is not going to help the person in the street (being held up by Just Stop Oil protestors) come on board.

    And sadly they have removed the (in)famous Independent article which did indeed forecast no more snow.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steve-connor-don-t-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

    And genuine question because apart from seeing them hold their parliament in scuba kit I haven't been following, when is the Maldives expected to sink below the surface.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
    We should somehow try to convince them to abandon such plans and make them keep their poor in their existing mud huts and tenements.
    Simple fact no nation is really going to go net zero because they know to try will end up in a popular uprising as no one anywhere will accept a decrease in what they feel they are owed as a living standard
    Exactly. "Famines and wars" are more likely as a result of that than of climate change.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,261
    Farooq said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
    Surely meant to evoke One Nation Conservatism?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    Well there is a line of argument which says that if people are unwilling to do anything about it and need saving from themselves (by whom? XR? @Farooq?) then I would not bet heavily on a successful outcome.

    But what about seatbelts!! everyone cries.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,241
    The best people get more left wing as they get older.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
    When has any government whether red or blue not used the cosh of disincentives rather than incentives are politicians only believe in the stick, carrots are like unicorns to them
    I mean, one example off the top of my head is tax breaks on electric cars.
    There are countless examples of carrots being used; it takes a special kind of blindness to not be aware of any at all.
    Electric cars = cars for rich people.

    The associated tax breaks are for the companies that buy them.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Well I have to go to the office in central london next wednesday so.....
    You should be ok, the trains are running.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    Point of fact its not wind farms they are objecting to, its objecting to wind farms near them. They like the cosy of wind farms just not here. I am pretty sure there are many in xr that would be objecting
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    And ginormous solar panel arrays.

    Because those people value their physical surroundings over our attempt to stop the earth's climate changing.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Well I have to go to the office in central london next wednesday so.....
    You should be ok, the trains are running.
    Oh my so I cant stay :(
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,246
    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Does this mean the Conservatives will now be the anti-development anti-housing party?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 29,878
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Does this mean the Conservatives will now be the anti-development anti-housing party?
    No thats the lib dems
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    There is a lot to object to, as anyone who's given more than a passing thought to the issue is well aware.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Do you ever go to the Flask?
    Not for a while. Outside at the Wells is more my sort of thing now.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,558

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    algarkirk said:

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
    Vote for none of the above as none of them are fit to govern, they are all bereft of idea's about how to fix anything and the composite general idea is continue as we are. That won't work anymore they have all kicked the can down the road but we have run out of road now
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,551
    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    And yet...

    It may not be popular when stated baldly, but it can still be the right thing to do. The experience of the last couple of decades is that "brownfield first" doesn't deliver the amount of new homes we need, and building on lower quality bits of green belt looks like a way of delivering more of the right homes in the right places.

    Sacrificing a bit of popularity to do something necessary but unpopular? It's been a while since we had someone like that. Perhaps since 1979-90.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    Pagan2 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Does this mean the Conservatives will now be the anti-development anti-housing party?
    No thats the lib dems
    If Starmer wins a narrow majority and starts to build on the greenbelt, expect the Conservatives and LDs to unite again on an issue for the first time since the coalition on a NIMBY platform of protecting green fields from new housing
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,241
    algarkirk said:

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
    The older you get , the more injustice you see and the more you realise that often rules, order and so called ‘facts’ are lazy assumptions. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,551

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    You can interpret it as a suggestion that empty nesters should downsize and make family homes available for families who need the space.

    A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
    On the other hand, heavy nudging to force empty nesters out of their lifetime homes ought to make us uncomfortable.

    The thing that would justify that sort of assertive rationing is if it's a resource that is incredibly scarce and is too important to leave to wealth and chance. Food in wartime, toilet rolls at the start of a pandemic, that sort of thing.

    As things stand, that could be said to apply to housing. But only because society has made it that way. Which suggests a solution...

    (Why yes, the laser display board behind me is flashing JUST BUILD MORE HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, why do you ask?)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,078
    edited May 2023
    Andy_JS said:
    Well if he holds his seat, which is a big if given the LDs are targeting it, the newly 'protect our greenbelt' John McDonnell now has more chance of being next Tory leader than Hunt if he takes that attitude. Pushing for more migrants might go down well with the CBI but will go down like a lead balloon in the Shires
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
    I am a white man, how was I privileged? I left school with no qualifications because it was a sink school, I grew up in a council house with 3 stories and one coal fire. I worked as a trawlerman till our fish quota took us down to 6 weeks fishing a year which didn't support a wage you could live on, I worked and paid my way through college to get o levels and a levels, got a job then got banned due to chemical sensitisation, worked through that with a child where I would have been 30£ a week better off on the dole to retrain to write software. All at my own cost....never got a db pension, never got any help from the state....where is my privilege please? I would like some as I keep being told I got it
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,059
    Jonathan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
    The older you get , the more injustice you see and the more you realise that often rules, order and so called ‘facts’ are lazy assumptions. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
    That might be true. But for some, the older you get, the more you realise that the lazy assumptions you made about the world when younger are actually much more complex and nuanced. Perhaps, even, that there are rarely simple answers.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,241
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
    I am a white man, how was I privileged? I left school with no qualifications because it was a sink school, I grew up in a council house with 3 stories and one coal fire. I worked as a trawlerman till our fish quota took us down to 6 weeks fishing a year which didn't support a wage you could live on, I worked and paid my way through college to get o levels and a levels, got a job then got banned due to chemical sensitisation, worked through that with a child where I would have been 30£ a week better off on the dole to retrain to write software. All at my own cost....never got a db pension, never got any help from the state....where is my privilege please? I would like some as I keep being told I got it
    Luxury. We lived in a shoebox in a septic tank.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,196
    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
    I am a white man, how was I privileged? I left school with no qualifications because it was a sink school, I grew up in a council house with 3 stories and one coal fire. I worked as a trawlerman till our fish quota took us down to 6 weeks fishing a year which didn't support a wage you could live on, I worked and paid my way through college to get o levels and a levels, got a job then got banned due to chemical sensitisation, worked through that with a child where I would have been 30£ a week better off on the dole to retrain to write software. All at my own cost....never got a db pension, never got any help from the state....where is my privilege please? I would like some as I keep being told I got it
    Luxury. We lived in a shoebox in a septic tank.
    Flippant answer....tell me where did I get white privilege?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,612
    Andy_JS said:
    You could magic up an increase in the size of the workforce by decreasing the number of people who spend 3-4 years in higher education.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,574
    This should have been a dreadful week for the Tories but somehow it’s Starmer who seems to have made a series of vote losing proposals .

    Even if this green belt and voting proposals bite the dust it’s already out there . The Tories will hammer Labour on these even if they’re not in the manifesto .

    Whoever is advising Starmer should be given a P45 .

    This is especially frustrating for people who want rid of the Tories and see these kinds of stupid missteps .
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    Is not what I said. I said stop catastrophising. Talk of climate change-driven "famines and wars" while still a common trope is not going to help the person in the street (being held up by Just Stop Oil protestors) come on board.

    And sadly they have removed the (in)famous Independent article which did indeed forecast no more snow.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steve-connor-don-t-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

    And genuine question because apart from seeing them hold their parliament in scuba kit I haven't been following, when is the Maldives expected to sink below the surface.
    There seems to be little correlation between the strength of your opinion on something and how much you know or understand it. I think that's fair comment.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,341
    edited May 2023
    I don't think young people not becoming more conservative anymore is inevitably going to continue. But I do think the Tories not only don't know how to address that problem, I think they have zero interest at the moment in figuring out how to address the problem. They want to preserve what they have, and talk about the good old days.

    They are currently in core 'talk to yourself' mode, and more interested in whinging about how people won't listen to them (and how that is some kind of conspiracy or false consciousness probably) and how they are the real good guys.

    Why they are doing that when they saw what that almost did to Labour I don't know.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,572
    edited May 2023
    Ok. Nice post. First, as Mike suggests, most Millennials have never voted in a pre-Cameron GE so there has been no opportunity to switch to them as an opposition. Second, UK/US conservatives found HIGHLY effective issues to motivate older voters. Tied to that second, polarisation on age increased as polarisation by socio-economic status fell. Finally, there are fewer young people nowadays as a share of the population, so they can deviate more extremely from the average with less overall impact.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 26,375
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    He hasn't had to do much. He's benefitting from the context created by Johnson's support for Ukraine, aided by not being Boris Johnson.
    That's a fair summary.
    It's not 100% perfect though. He's benefiting both from not being Bozo and from them having been shown what the other option (as demonstrated by Liz Truss) would have looked like.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,057
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    Is not what I said. I said stop catastrophising. Talk of climate change-driven "famines and wars" while still a common trope is not going to help the person in the street (being held up by Just Stop Oil protestors) come on board.

    And sadly they have removed the (in)famous Independent article which did indeed forecast no more snow.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steve-connor-don-t-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

    And genuine question because apart from seeing them hold their parliament in scuba kit I haven't been following, when is the Maldives expected to sink below the surface.
    There seems to be little correlation between the strength of your opinion on something and how much you know or understand it. I think that's fair comment.
    Sozza. Not taking any lectures from old, white, privileged men.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    Jonathan said:

    The best people get more left wing as they get older.

    Yes, and I sense this will happen with Leon. By age 70 he'll be a right wing Tory.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,141
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    Is not what I said. I said stop catastrophising. Talk of climate change-driven "famines and wars" while still a common trope is not going to help the person in the street (being held up by Just Stop Oil protestors) come on board.

    And sadly they have removed the (in)famous Independent article which did indeed forecast no more snow.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steve-connor-don-t-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

    And genuine question because apart from seeing them hold their parliament in scuba kit I haven't been following, when is the Maldives expected to sink below the surface.
    There seems to be little correlation between the strength of your opinion on something and how much you know or understand it. I think that's fair comment.
    Sozza. Not taking any lectures from old, white, privileged men.
    Oh now you sound a bit peeved. Gosh.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,557
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:


    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    There is a lot to object to, as anyone who's given more than a passing thought to the issue is well aware.
    Well, if you say so. I'd sooner live near a wind farm than a coal plant.
    I'd sooner depend on getting my energy from a coal plant than a wind farm.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,241
    edited May 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
    I am a white man, how was I privileged? I left school with no qualifications because it was a sink school, I grew up in a council house with 3 stories and one coal fire. I worked as a trawlerman till our fish quota took us down to 6 weeks fishing a year which didn't support a wage you could live on, I worked and paid my way through college to get o levels and a levels, got a job then got banned due to chemical sensitisation, worked through that with a child where I would have been 30£ a week better off on the dole to retrain to write software. All at my own cost....never got a db pension, never got any help from the state....where is my privilege please? I would like some as I keep being told I got it
    Luxury. We lived in a shoebox in a septic tank.
    Flippant answer....tell me where did I get white privilege?
    You were born in Britain in the second half of the 20th century. Compared to everyone that went before and most of the world you have won top prize in the lottery of life.

    Which isn’t to say that white working people have serious challenges in this country that demand serious attention.

    Even people from Yorkshire.
This discussion has been closed.