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
Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.
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.
You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
I bet so much of this is related to house and car ownership. Those who aren't owners go socialist.
You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
What's the equivalent in the 2020s?
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.
That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
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.
A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
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.
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"
Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
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
This is why your party is on the slide. You see the problems but you don't care enough to do something.
Sadly for you I won't name it but it is a special corner of heaven on earth.
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?
There are countless examples of carrots being used; it takes a special kind of blindness to not be aware of any at all.
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’
Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
And sadly they have removed the (in)famous Independent article which did indeed forecast no more snow.
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.
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
But what about seatbelts!! everyone cries.
The associated tax breaks are for the companies that buy them.
Because those people value their physical surroundings over our attempt to stop the earth's climate changing.
I thought it was implicit that I am ok with that but just to make it clear, I am absolutely ok with that.
The job of people who are obsessed with a subject is to persuade others of its importance, not to drag everyone else against their will into something they don't care for. That's the liberalism that is heart of democracy.
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.
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?)