Javid says halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.
"If people want to see your GPs or senior nurses or headteachers or an accountant give up their job to want to come into Parliament they have to take a massive fall in their lifestyle to do it.
"A lot of people are not willing to do that. So you tend to get in Parliament either really rich people who don't need money and therefore they don't care if their salary is £88,000 or £28,000.... Or you will get people that were earning sort of £30,000 - £80,000 is a big jump but they might not come with the skills that Parliament needs.
To help visualise Javid’s plan below we have an image of a current MP on the left and an MP who has been halved on the right.
What is going on with Sunak’s suit? Too vain to allow his tailor to take out the jacket so it actually fits him? Surely someone with that much ££ can cough up for a spot of decent tailoring?
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Javid says halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.
"If people want to see your GPs or senior nurses or headteachers or an accountant give up their job to want to come into Parliament they have to take a massive fall in their lifestyle to do it.
"A lot of people are not willing to do that. So you tend to get in Parliament either really rich people who don't need money and therefore they don't care if their salary is £88,000 or £28,000.... Or you will get people that were earning sort of £30,000 - £80,000 is a big jump but they might not come with the skills that Parliament needs.
To help visualise Javid’s plan below we have an image of a current MP on the left and an MP who has been halved on the right.
What is going on with Sunak’s suit? Too vain to allow his tailor to take out the jacket so it actually fits him? Surely someone with that much ££ can cough up for a spot of decent tailoring?
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Add in regular voids between tenancies and the number of workers per rental household drops back significantly.
Also owner households will take on increasing amounts of lodgers as the cost of living crisis bites.
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
You have to think that the present circumstances will tend towards rent inflation. A lot of the distressed landlords are going to be throwing their tenants out rather than selling up with a sitting tenancy, increasing the numbers of potential tenants trying to get into a decreasing number of remaining properties. That ought to be enough to encourage new entrants into the landlord business to raise their revenue expectations, and the existing landlords then to ramp their own demands in line with a buoyant market - and that's on top of the strong effect of the surviving mortgaged landlords ramping up rents to recoup their increased mortgage interest costs.
Ultimately, in a tight market where vendors have a product that's in huge demand and that people cannot do without, they're going to screw the buyers until the pips squeak. Renters can and will be put in the position where they don't get to go on holidays, they don't get to buy new clothes, they can't afford to go out to restaurants - they just go to work, cover the cost of utility bills and supermarket budget range food, and hand all the rest of their income over in taxes and rent.
The tenant does, however, have the comfort of knowing that they're working from January until about May every year to pay for their landlord to enjoy the best seats in West End theatres, a new Rolex, and a fortnight away in a plush hotel in St Lucia, or perhaps on the Amalfi Coast. Which will doubtless give them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, to compensate for being unable to afford to switch on the central heating.
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
Phew it worked! We heard you might be thinking of voting Labour and wanted to nip that right in the bud.
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
Phew it worked! We heard you might be thinking of voting Labour and wanted to nip that right in the bud.
Why on earth are Labour supporting BTL landlords? Makes no sense to me either. Support workers! Do what it says on the tin!
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
You think the peoples of South Asia were looking for an excuse to roll around on the floor pretending to be hurt? I thought they had more self respect than that.
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Ignoring the extremes of pensioners and students, owner-occupier houses can have more workers than rentals, due to the fact they're not void between lets and they can sub-let any unoccupied rooms to cram extra workers in too if they need to sweat the asset.
A family that has children that lets and has to move regularly due to renting will have more void times in the houses as they have to move and in-between re-lets than if they are stable in a home of their own.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
And worth adding that whatever the British might have taught them in terms of the basics has been gloriously expanded and enriched by what we have had back in return from the other Cricket playing countries. Otherwise we might have risked ending up like the US with their 'World' series.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
...it means that affordability on a like for like basis is significantly worse than the chart suggests. In other words mortgages are as unaffordable for 32 year olds now as they were for 28 year olds in the financial crisis and probably something like 25 year olds in 1990.
However, the older they get, the more likely they are to be in dual-income households.
That's a harder one to unpick. The average age of marriage has been going up over time too, but of course many couples living together aren't married. But the proportion of households overall that are single person has been rising.
Javid says halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.
"If people want to see your GPs or senior nurses or headteachers or an accountant give up their job to want to come into Parliament they have to take a massive fall in their lifestyle to do it.
"A lot of people are not willing to do that. So you tend to get in Parliament either really rich people who don't need money and therefore they don't care if their salary is £88,000 or £28,000.... Or you will get people that were earning sort of £30,000 - £80,000 is a big jump but they might not come with the skills that Parliament needs.
No - halve the number of unelected Lords, NOT the elected MPs!
He's looking at the approach of how do you improve the quality of MPs without increasing costs.
Personally I would just say we need to pay MPs more because heck I earn more than they do from my spare room...
If you have a single vote, Mr
In most places they vote for the same party over and over. That means you keep your seat forever unless you dip below the low baselines for loyalty and propriety. Over time, whatever external merits you brought when you got in have no reason to be upheld. This is the fundamental problem and extra pay can't fix it. Term limits would clear out the deadwood at the cost of inflexibility, less democracy, and more inexperienced MPs in other important ways. Primaries would also work but are expensive.
Use single transferable vote or some other ordinal voting method within multi-member constituencies. Then you’ll get some degree of intra-party competition, so even if people are voting for the same party over and over, they may vote for different candidates.
If you have a single vote, Mr Bondegezou, you cannot vote more than once. Your vote may transfer to another candidate, if your preferred candidate does not need it, for whatever reason,but that is another matter.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
You think the peoples of South Asia were looking for an excuse to roll around on the floor pretending to be hurt? I thought they had more self respect than that.
The Brits taught the South Americans football, in a similar(ish) climate. Why not South Asia?
...it means that affordability on a like for like basis is significantly worse than the chart suggests. In other words mortgages are as unaffordable for 32 year olds now as they were for 28 year olds in the financial crisis and probably something like 25 year olds in 1990.
This is a very good point. Comparisons are also somewhat complicated by changes in household composition (e.g. number of single-earner vs two-earner households), and changes in the relationship between median and mean incomes.
But, in the big picture, the key point in political terms is that the situation is not great for Sunak.
Quite. Lorra pissed off people is the point, not are they 5% older or 3% more dual incomey than in 1990.
Having said which a major distinction is possibly greater age = more likely to have children. From where I was standing it looked like on average the people coming to grief in the early 90s were young free and single, relatively speaking, which makes the whole eviction thing very slightly less stressy.
Great venue. Saw Pokey Lafarge there a few years ago. When the curfew was enforced for amplified music he just unplugged and carried on. The accoustics were excellent.
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Ignoring the extremes of pensioners and students, owner-occupier houses can have more workers than rentals, due to the fact they're not void between lets and they can sub-let any unoccupied rooms to cram extra workers in too if they need to sweat the asset.
A family that has children that lets and has to move regularly due to renting will have more void times in the houses as they have to move and in-between re-lets than if they are stable in a home of their own.
That's true about voids. I get the impression that they are somewhat less long-lasting now we are in the "internet age".
Sub-letting just seems to be far less common among young families who own a house, I guess because moving to a cheaper dwelling is more costly to them than to renters. (Edit: that doesn't make any sense. I don't have a good sense why. Maybe it is just pure affordability; you need to overcome some baseline to buy a house.)
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
A surprising number of sports involve standing or sitting around for a very long time. Fishing, golf, playing on the wing for an English rugby team…
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
You think the peoples of South Asia were looking for an excuse to roll around on the floor pretending to be hurt? I thought they had more self respect than that.
The Brits taught the South Americans football, in a similar(ish) climate. Why not South Asia?
Because we like the South Asians. Why would we inflict self obsessed bladder kicking upon them?
Javid says halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.
"If people want to see your GPs or senior nurses or headteachers or an accountant give up their job to want to come into Parliament they have to take a massive fall in their lifestyle to do it.
"A lot of people are not willing to do that. So you tend to get in Parliament either really rich people who don't need money and therefore they don't care if their salary is £88,000 or £28,000.... Or you will get people that were earning sort of £30,000 - £80,000 is a big jump but they might not come with the skills that Parliament needs.
To help visualise Javid’s plan below we have an image of a current MP on the left and an MP who has been halved on the right.
What is going on with Sunak’s suit? Too vain to allow his tailor to take out the jacket so it actually fits him? Surely someone with that much ££ can cough up for a spot of decent tailoring?
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
Have you ever faced fast bowling? I'm guessing not.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
A surprising number of sports involve standing or sitting around for a very long time. Fishing, golf, playing on the wing for an English rugby team…
Playing in goal for bladder kicking. Actually playing as a striker for most of the history of the England football team.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
A surprising number of sports involve standing or sitting around for a very long time. Fishing, golf, playing on the wing for an English rugby team…
Playing in goal for bladder kicking. Actually playing as a striker for most of the history of the England football team.
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Ignoring the extremes of pensioners and students, owner-occupier houses can have more workers than rentals, due to the fact they're not void between lets and they can sub-let any unoccupied rooms to cram extra workers in too if they need to sweat the asset.
A family that has children that lets and has to move regularly due to renting will have more void times in the houses as they have to move and in-between re-lets than if they are stable in a home of their own.
That's true about voids. I get the impression that they are somewhat less long-lasting now we are in the "internet age".
Sub-letting just seems to be far less common among young families who own a house, I guess because moving to a cheaper dwelling is more costly to them than to renters.
How common is sub-letting among families who let one either?
According to the English Housing Survey the largest household is on average mortgage-owners.
Mortgage-owning households on average have 2.8 people per house, whereas private rentals OTOH have 2.3 people per house.
So I see no reason or evidence to suggest households shrink when they buy with a mortgage.
Javid says halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.
"If people want to see your GPs or senior nurses or headteachers or an accountant give up their job to want to come into Parliament they have to take a massive fall in their lifestyle to do it.
"A lot of people are not willing to do that. So you tend to get in Parliament either really rich people who don't need money and therefore they don't care if their salary is £88,000 or £28,000.... Or you will get people that were earning sort of £30,000 - £80,000 is a big jump but they might not come with the skills that Parliament needs.
To help visualise Javid’s plan below we have an image of a current MP on the left and an MP who has been halved on the right.
What is going on with Sunak’s suit? Too vain to allow his tailor to take out the jacket so it actually fits him? Surely someone with that much ££ can cough up for a spot of decent tailoring?
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Add in regular voids between tenancies and the number of workers per rental household drops back significantly.
Also owner households will take on increasing amounts of lodgers as the cost of living crisis bites.
While this latter point is true, it doesn't fundamentally solve for "bad people paying their mortgage with your income", and anyway it seems all else equal to be less likely than _other renters_ maintaining 1-2 incomes per room.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
Have you ever faced fast bowling? I'm guessing not.
Run-up of 25 paces? Whoopee-fucking do! Hey, I'm impressed!
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
Phew it worked! We heard you might be thinking of voting Labour and wanted to nip that right in the bud.
Why on earth are Labour supporting BTL landlords? Makes no sense to me either. Support workers! Do what it says on the tin!
It's entire possible that Labour is so terrified that a downward correction in house prices will cause some kind of economic omnicrisis - so hopelessly wedded to property investment and speculation has the British socio-economic structure become - that Reeves feels it necessary to prop up even the BTL landlord industry for fear that toppling that particular domino might bring all the others down.
But yes, on the face if it this does look suspiciously like using finite resources to prop up the lifestyles of the well off at the expense of the entire population, including renters and the poor. There really is no such thing as a free lunch: even if Labour tries to regulate its way out of trouble by forcing the banks to prop up landlords rather than spending Government money to subsidise them, the banks will simply pass that cost on to other customers, in the form, for example, of higher interest rates on non-mortgage loans and even more derisory rates of interest payable to savers.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
Have you ever faced fast bowling? I'm guessing not.
Run-up of 25 paces? Whoopee-fucking do! Hey, I'm impressed!
Seattle Times ($) - Former Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert files paperwork to run for WA governor
Former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert has filed campaign paperwork to run for Washington state governor in 2024.
If Reichert follows through and runs for the open seat, he would instantly become the most prominent Republican in a field that is still taking shape, more than a year before the primary election.
Reichert, 72, registered his campaign with the state Public Disclosure Commission on Friday . . .
Reichert served seven terms in Congress, representing Washington’s 8th Congressional District, which spans the Cascade Mountains, covering King County suburbs as well as rural Kittitas and Chelan counties. He was first elected in 2004 . . .
The district was held by Republicans since its creation in 1983 up to Reichert’s retirement in 2019. The seat has been held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier ever since.
A moderate Republican, Reichert was critical of President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and during the two years they were both in office. He declined to endorse Trump in 2016 and said that he cast a write-in vote for president that year for Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.
He ultimately voted against the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, after voting for prior versions. He was a supporter of trade deals, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Trump scrapped after taking office.
He also mostly voted against abortion rights on an issue that has only gained prominence since he left office.
Prior to running for Congress, Reichert was King County sheriff for eight years. A longtime deputy, he was appointed sheriff in 1997 and ran unopposed for reelection in 2001. [SSI - And becoming world-famous for apprehending the "Green River" serial killer.]
Reichert has worked as a lobbyist since leaving Congress, representing Thermo Fisher Scientific, a Bothell-based pharmaceutical and health products company.
Over the years, he has repeatedly hinted at possible runs for governor or U.S. senator, but has never launched a campaign.
Twenty-two people, so far, have filed paperwork with the PDC, the state’s campaign finance watchdog, to run for governor in 2024.
Incumbent Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee has announced he is not running.
Leading Democratic candidates include Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz and state Sen. Mark Mullet. The most-prominent Republicans so far are Semi Bird, a military veteran and Richland School Board member, and Raul Garcia, a Yakima doctor who also ran in 2020.
SSI - IMHO as someone who worked (obviously unsuccessfully) to defeat him when he was in Congress, reckon Dave Reichert is strongest candidate Republicans could hope to find. Heck, IF he'd been running in 2004 instead of Dino Rossi for GOP, he'd have been elected in race where Democrat Christine Gregoire only won by 129 vote margin.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
Bite your tongue! Seeing as how MY own sporting prowess as a school boy, playing dis-organized baseball, consisted at least 99.46% of the time, stationed somewhere on the FAR fringes of the outfield, waiting to dodge whatever balls might be hit in my direction.
So, we exchange ridiculous property prices and rock bottom interest rates for ridiculous property prices and high interest rates. That's going to screw a vast number of people, though I can tell you for a fact that the one person more likely to suffer from it than Mr Average Mortgage Payer is Mr Average Renter. With the more highly leveraged BTL landlords stampeding for the exits, the supply of property in the private rental market will end up so constricted, and with so many people bidding for the remaining properties, that the surviving landlords will be able to charge... well, up to the limit that the best paid and most desperate available tenant is willing to stump up. The effect is already obvious on the property websites: even up here, some forty miles north of London, one bedroom flats (the very few still available) are up to about £900pcm, and I reckon they'll be going for a grand or more by the end of the year.
For anyone with a decent slab of money to put down on investing in a rental property, either through outright purchase or with a small mortgage, this is the dawn of the Diamond Age of Landlordism. If you can afford one flat, somebody else's wages will end up paying all those expensive utility bills for you. If you can buy two, the second tenant's wages will also pay your grocery bills and you can spend most of your own salary on jollies, perhaps cut your working hours down and semi-retire. After all, why waste your own time working to support yourself when somebody else can waste their time working to support you instead?
I suppose it depends on whom leveraged BTL owners sell their properties to. Cash-rich investors: likely no change; though the transaction might lead to a one-off price adjustment, in cases where the previous landlord got inattentive about repricing in line with market rents. Owner-occupiers: likely a big compression of the number of workers housed per property, and the above dynamics apply to the people who don't end up buying. As you say, the rents may be high but the prices are also high.
Why would there be a compression of the number of workers housed per property?
That's linked primarily to age [ie students, or those at the very start of their career], not whether people buy or let.
There is next to no difference between average household size for rental or owner-occupied and that difference that exists is fully explained by the fact tenants are more likely to have dependent children living with them (who are not workers) while pensioner owner occupiers don't.
An owner-occupier house, in my experience and from common sense, will typically house between zero and two workers. Among the relevant households who would move from renter to owner if landlords were selling up, I think almost every household will be either one or two workers. By contrast, in rental properties, tenants often sweat the asset of occupancy, so to speak, by cramming more workers in.
Add in regular voids between tenancies and the number of workers per rental household drops back significantly.
Also owner households will take on increasing amounts of lodgers as the cost of living crisis bites.
While this latter point is true, it doesn't fundamentally solve for "bad people paying their mortgage with your income", and anyway it seems all else equal to be less likely than _other renters_ maintaining 1-2 incomes per room.
Statistically mortgage-paying households have significantly more full-time working people than either privately rented, socially-rented or owned-outright do.
Which is perhaps unsurprising given the demographics etc
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
Phew it worked! We heard you might be thinking of voting Labour and wanted to nip that right in the bud.
Why on earth are Labour supporting BTL landlords? Makes no sense to me either. Support workers! Do what it says on the tin!
It's entire possible that Labour is so terrified that a downward correction in house prices will cause some kind of economic omnicrisis - so hopelessly wedded to property investment and speculation has the British socio-economic structure become - that Reeves feels it necessary to prop up even the BTL landlord industry for fear that toppling that particular domino might bring all the others down.
But yes, on the face if it this does look suspiciously like using finite resources to prop up the lifestyles of the well off at the expense of the entire population, including renters and the poor. There really is no such thing as a free lunch: even if Labour tries to regulate its way out of trouble by forcing the banks to prop up landlords rather than spending Government money to subsidise them, the banks will simply pass that cost on to other customers, in the form, for example, of higher interest rates on non-mortgage loans and even more derisory rates of interest payable to savers.
I don't think any of the conditions are in place to deliver a downward correction if BTL mortgage activity falls. First I don't think there has been a speculative credit bubble in the last few years; second there are plenty of investors who can come into the market who who don't need BTL mortgages, both households and companies; and third, whatever about government policy, thinking instead about an informal basis, the banks can extend and pretend to avoid huge fire sale volumes of foreclosures hitting the market. (Of course, the opposite is certainly conceivable. Some big factor hitting property prices would definitely cool BTL activity.)
I'd add that I don't think this would really be using finite resources, rather it would be avoiding costly enforcement of the bank's contractual right in a potentially self-harming manner. I might be wrong, but I get the impression the charter is PR for what banks already do ad hoc.
For those reasons, I think Labour's policy is a mix of appealing to older median voters with assets, in the expectation that it won't offend any significant number of Labour-considerers, plus some desire to avoid a crisis of rental liquidity / supply.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
You think the peoples of South Asia were looking for an excuse to roll around on the floor pretending to be hurt? I thought they had more self respect than that.
The Brits taught the South Americans football, in a similar(ish) climate. Why not South Asia?
Because we like the South Asians. Why would we inflict self obsessed bladder kicking upon them?
Perhaps bit tooooooo soon after the Mutiny (Indian not Russian) to start promoting game based on kicking around (what might easily be alleged to be) a cow's OR pig's bladder?
"Honest Injun, chaps - THIS one is a genuine best-British SHEEP's bladder. You trust me, don't you?"
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
They're getting pokier.
Agreed. New builds are mostly crap. My own flat is about 20 years old and is small enough (it's why 60s and 70s flats in more upmarket areas are so highly marketable: all that space,) but it's palatial compared to some of the shitty little broom cupboards that developers around here have crammed into available plots more recently. The same applies to bog standard new build houses - it's only luxury developments that provide upmarket finishes and square footage to match.
Besides which, you're already taking a considerable risk if you buy one, simply due to the risk of defect. Too many horror stories abound nowadays of badly built homes that the builders then refuse to put right, whilst the horrified owners discover that their NHBC certificate is completely worthless. There's even been an episode in Cambridge recently where it was announced that dozens of nearly finished new builds, many of which had already been bought off-plan, are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch because they've been so badly constructed. Though I suppose in that case at least the error is being properly corrected, before we've got to the stage where a load of poor saps have actually found themselves servicing eyewatering mortgages for the dubious honour of trying to survive in crumbling ruins.
If you saw this in isolation without knowing any further context, it makes Trump actually seem reasonable. And that final 30 seconds of that ad is just plain creepy.
DeSantis has done the seemingly impossible and is even worse than Trump.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
Um, that's only true if the ftb is buying a house built after 1990...
Javid says halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.
"If people want to see your GPs or senior nurses or headteachers or an accountant give up their job to want to come into Parliament they have to take a massive fall in their lifestyle to do it.
"A lot of people are not willing to do that. So you tend to get in Parliament either really rich people who don't need money and therefore they don't care if their salary is £88,000 or £28,000.... Or you will get people that were earning sort of £30,000 - £80,000 is a big jump but they might not come with the skills that Parliament needs.
To help visualise Javid’s plan below we have an image of a current MP on the left and an MP who has been halved on the right.
What is going on with Sunak’s suit? Too vain to allow his tailor to take out the jacket so it actually fits him? Surely someone with that much ££ can cough up for a spot of decent tailoring?
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
Um, that's only true if the ftb is buying a house built after 1990...
Or one re-furbished after 1990 too.
Besides, he said probably not certainly, so it holds true.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
Seattle Times ($) - Former Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert files paperwork to run for WA governor
Former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert has filed campaign paperwork to run for Washington state governor in 2024.
If Reichert follows through and runs for the open seat, he would instantly become the most prominent Republican in a field that is still taking shape, more than a year before the primary election.
Reichert, 72, registered his campaign with the state Public Disclosure Commission on Friday . . .
Reichert served seven terms in Congress, representing Washington’s 8th Congressional District, which spans the Cascade Mountains, covering King County suburbs as well as rural Kittitas and Chelan counties. He was first elected in 2004 . . .
The district was held by Republicans since its creation in 1983 up to Reichert’s retirement in 2019. The seat has been held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier ever since.
A moderate Republican, Reichert was critical of President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and during the two years they were both in office. He declined to endorse Trump in 2016 and said that he cast a write-in vote for president that year for Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.
He ultimately voted against the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, after voting for prior versions. He was a supporter of trade deals, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Trump scrapped after taking office.
He also mostly voted against abortion rights on an issue that has only gained prominence since he left office.
Prior to running for Congress, Reichert was King County sheriff for eight years. A longtime deputy, he was appointed sheriff in 1997 and ran unopposed for reelection in 2001. [SSI - And becoming world-famous for apprehending the "Green River" serial killer.]
Reichert has worked as a lobbyist since leaving Congress, representing Thermo Fisher Scientific, a Bothell-based pharmaceutical and health products company.
Over the years, he has repeatedly hinted at possible runs for governor or U.S. senator, but has never launched a campaign.
Twenty-two people, so far, have filed paperwork with the PDC, the state’s campaign finance watchdog, to run for governor in 2024.
Incumbent Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee has announced he is not running.
Leading Democratic candidates include Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz and state Sen. Mark Mullet. The most-prominent Republicans so far are Semi Bird, a military veteran and Richland School Board member, and Raul Garcia, a Yakima doctor who also ran in 2020.
SSI - IMHO as someone who worked (obviously unsuccessfully) to defeat him when he was in Congress, reckon Dave Reichert is strongest candidate Republicans could hope to find. Heck, IF he'd been running in 2004 instead of Dino Rossi for GOP, he'd have been elected in race where Democrat Christine Gregoire only won by 129 vote margin.
How will a pro-life candidate cope in WA? IIUC the WA electorate are swinging against the Dems, but abortion is increasingly salient and IMHO was the thing that gave Dems the midterms.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
You think the peoples of South Asia were looking for an excuse to roll around on the floor pretending to be hurt? I thought they had more self respect than that.
The Brits taught the South Americans football, in a similar(ish) climate. Why not South Asia?
Because we like the South Asians. Why would we inflict self obsessed bladder kicking upon them?
By your definition, why wouldn't self-obsessed bladder kickers inflict their sport on whomever they came across?
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
Just after we open the third runway then... 😀
Nuclear fusion generation will be up and running by then of course - 25 years ago it was just 30 years away.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
The party which is 'brave' enough to suspend the new ICE ban would be a strong shout for GE success!
Can't see CON (as they currently are) doing that and certainly not LAB or LD!
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
Just after we open the third runway then... 😀
Nuclear fusion generation will be up and running by then of course - 25 years ago it was just 30 years away.
It's the power source of the future. Always has been, always will be.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of new vehicle sales are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Seattle Times ($) - Former Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert files paperwork to run for WA governor
Former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert has filed campaign paperwork to run for Washington state governor in 2024.
If Reichert follows through and runs for the open seat, he would instantly become the most prominent Republican in a field that is still taking shape, more than a year before the primary election.
Reichert, 72, registered his campaign with the state Public Disclosure Commission on Friday . . .
Reichert served seven terms in Congress, representing Washington’s 8th Congressional District, which spans the Cascade Mountains, covering King County suburbs as well as rural Kittitas and Chelan counties. He was first elected in 2004 . . .
The district was held by Republicans since its creation in 1983 up to Reichert’s retirement in 2019. The seat has been held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier ever since.
A moderate Republican, Reichert was critical of President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and during the two years they were both in office. He declined to endorse Trump in 2016 and said that he cast a write-in vote for president that year for Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.
He ultimately voted against the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, after voting for prior versions. He was a supporter of trade deals, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Trump scrapped after taking office.
He also mostly voted against abortion rights on an issue that has only gained prominence since he left office.
Prior to running for Congress, Reichert was King County sheriff for eight years. A longtime deputy, he was appointed sheriff in 1997 and ran unopposed for reelection in 2001. [SSI - And becoming world-famous for apprehending the "Green River" serial killer.]
Reichert has worked as a lobbyist since leaving Congress, representing Thermo Fisher Scientific, a Bothell-based pharmaceutical and health products company.
Over the years, he has repeatedly hinted at possible runs for governor or U.S. senator, but has never launched a campaign.
Twenty-two people, so far, have filed paperwork with the PDC, the state’s campaign finance watchdog, to run for governor in 2024.
Incumbent Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee has announced he is not running.
Leading Democratic candidates include Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz and state Sen. Mark Mullet. The most-prominent Republicans so far are Semi Bird, a military veteran and Richland School Board member, and Raul Garcia, a Yakima doctor who also ran in 2020.
SSI - IMHO as someone who worked (obviously unsuccessfully) to defeat him when he was in Congress, reckon Dave Reichert is strongest candidate Republicans could hope to find. Heck, IF he'd been running in 2004 instead of Dino Rossi for GOP, he'd have been elected in race where Democrat Christine Gregoire only won by 129 vote margin.
How will a pro-life candidate cope in WA? IIUC the WA electorate are swinging against the Dems, but abortion is increasingly salient and IMHO was the thing that gave Dems the midterms.
You have a point. And while he may waffle a bit, he won't abandon his personal pro-life beliefs (as an evangelical Christian).
However, abortion would be MORE of an issue IF he runs for US Senator. In part because even a pro-life Gov would be significantly constrained by pro-choice legislature.
Bottom line to me is, for Republicans there really isn't any other realistic option out there, methinks.
And while Democrats are likely to keep their hold on the Governor's Mansion in Olympia, which one or another has occupied consecutively since 1984 election, with Dave Reichert in the race, it's no longer a slam dunk for the Dems.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
They're getting pokier.
Agreed. New builds are mostly crap. My own flat is about 20 years old and is small enough (it's why 60s and 70s flats in more upmarket areas are so highly marketable: all that space,) but it's palatial compared to some of the shitty little broom cupboards that developers around here have crammed into available plots more recently. The same applies to bog standard new build houses - it's only luxury developments that provide upmarket finishes and square footage to match.
Besides which, you're already taking a considerable risk if you buy one, simply due to the risk of defect. Too many horror stories abound nowadays of badly built homes that the builders then refuse to put right, whilst the horrified owners discover that their NHBC certificate is completely worthless. There's even been an episode in Cambridge recently where it was announced that dozens of nearly finished new builds, many of which had already been bought off-plan, are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch because they've been so badly constructed. Though I suppose in that case at least the error is being properly corrected, before we've got to the stage where a load of poor saps have actually found themselves servicing eyewatering mortgages for the dubious honour of trying to survive in crumbling ruins.
New builds are a little smaller, which is inevitable given the decline in numbers of person per household; no pressing need for more six-bedroom homes on big sites. But overall, houses are much better heated, insulated and ventilated, and even those pokey new builds are actually better laid-out for age and disability needs.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
If anyone starts talking nonsense about “Proven Reserves”…. I have some Peak Oil to sell them.
People don't understand resource estimates, which are usually bottom up, and defined at a per field / mine basis, and are the minimum expected level, and which are used to secure funding, with likely economic reserves globally. (Which might well be 100x the bottom up numbers.)
The Redfield & Wilton and Deltapoll numbers don't show a lot of movement from last week.
The England sub sample from R&W has Labour on 48%, Conservatives on 28%, Liberal Democrats on 12%, Greens on 6%, Reform on 5%.
The swing from Conservative to Labour in England is 16.5% while the swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat is 9.5%.
As for Deltapoll, the lead remains at 23 points - 15 points among men and 31 points among women. The Conservatives lead 43-30 among 65+ voters (this was a group they won 64-17 in 2019 so that's a 17% swing in that key demographic).
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
Mate, have you been around the last few years? I don't doubt what say, and hope it happens, but come on, it's a damn goat rodeo here!
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
Yes, as far as the generation issues are concerned I'm not worried. As you say BEVs can actually help smooth out the gap between peak and night-time usage. Indeed smart variable price fuelled BEVs could do wonders to help handle intermittent energy generation too, so are a blessing not a curse. And even once the whole fleet is BEV, its not like everyone will charge simultaneously like a TV Pickup of old, its not as if every petrol car is filled simultaneously either.
The problem though is with regards to flats etc. The problems that exist with them today are still going to exist in 6 years time, and too many seem to have an "I have mine" attitude towards at-home charging that the problem for homes without any at-home charging capabilities is just not being taken seriously enough.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
Just after we open the third runway then... 😀
Nuclear fusion generation will be up and running by then of course - 25 years ago it was just 30 years away.
You may jest but I believe there is 1 American firm who believes their version of fusion is only 5 years away and others are getting close.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
It'll happen more fine for some than for others.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
Just after we open the third runway then... 😀
Nuclear fusion generation will be up and running by then of course - 25 years ago it was just 30 years away.
You may jest but I believe there is 1 American firm who believes their version of fusion is only 5 years away and others are getting close.
I suspect 15 years may actually be realistic.
There's an American firm who actually believes their version of fusion is only 5 years away?
Or there's an American firm which is trying to convince investors that their version of fusion is only 5 years away?
Unless or until we have a working and operation fusion firm, I wouldn't trust any claims on viability further than I could throw them.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
It'll happen more fine for some than for others.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
Sounds about right.
Of course, if I understand the electrification plans correctly, there's no time limit on the phasing out of ICE cars after their sale is banned. So we know where that will end: the haves with their driveways and their shiny, efficient electric cars; the have-nots engaged in an increasing desperate and expensive battle to keep their jalopies on the road as they start to dwindle in number, petrol becomes gradually harder to come by and desperately dear, and both repair bills and the price of second hand vehicles escalates.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
Mate, have you been around the last few years? I don't doubt what say, and hope it happens, but come on, it's a damn goat rodeo here!
That's deeply offensive.
Goats are intelligent creatures and very determined, if sometimes wilful.
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
They're getting pokier.
Agreed. New builds are mostly crap. My own flat is about 20 years old and is small enough (it's why 60s and 70s flats in more upmarket areas are so highly marketable: all that space,) but it's palatial compared to some of the shitty little broom cupboards that developers around here have crammed into available plots more recently. The same applies to bog standard new build houses - it's only luxury developments that provide upmarket finishes and square footage to match.
Besides which, you're already taking a considerable risk if you buy one, simply due to the risk of defect. Too many horror stories abound nowadays of badly built homes that the builders then refuse to put right, whilst the horrified owners discover that their NHBC certificate is completely worthless. There's even been an episode in Cambridge recently where it was announced that dozens of nearly finished new builds, many of which had already been bought off-plan, are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch because they've been so badly constructed. Though I suppose in that case at least the error is being properly corrected, before we've got to the stage where a load of poor saps have actually found themselves servicing eyewatering mortgages for the dubious honour of trying to survive in crumbling ruins.
New builds are a little smaller, which is inevitable given the decline in numbers of person per household; no pressing need for more six-bedroom homes on big sites. But overall, houses are much better heated, insulated and ventilated, and even those pokey new builds are actually better laid-out for age and disability needs.
The decline in square footage has nothing to do with the decline in household size and everything to do with making all the rooms smaller so that more properties will fit onto the available land. See also postage stamp-sized gardens.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
It'll happen more fine for some than for others.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
Sounds about right.
Of course, if I understand the electrification plans correctly, there's no time limit on the phasing out of ICE cars after their sale is banned. So we know where that will end: the haves with their driveways and their shiny, efficient electric cars; the have-nots engaged in an increasing desperate and expensive battle to keep their jalopies on the road as they start to dwindle in number, petrol becomes gradually harder to come by and desperately dear, and both repair bills and the price of second hand vehicles escalates.
Yes and the have-nots will increasingly be told "why don't you just charge at home/get a train" when neither is a viable option.
Hopefully people can come up with viable solutions, that gul-e system someone linked to before looks quite interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
When I got my home last year I made sure at off-road driveway was a priority. First time I've ever had one, but very grateful for it for the future; too many people don't have one and too many decision makers don't care about that.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
As someone of Sri Lankan descent, I violently disagree. Cricket is probably the best sport in the World.
Standing around in a field all day a sport doth not make!
Bite your tongue! Seeing as how MY own sporting prowess as a school boy, playing dis-organized baseball, consisted at least 99.46% of the time, stationed somewhere on the FAR fringes of the outfield, waiting to dodge whatever balls might be hit in my direction.
Greetings fellow left fielder. Ours is the most contemplative of positions.
In the light of the wicket keeping shenanigans at the weekend, has everyone persused, perhaps England's greatest wicketkeeper Alan Knott's eBay auctions. Lots of Kent and England memorabilia up for sale.
The positioning of all three parties on this has been awful. The Tories own the mess and show no willingness to change, the Lib Dems want to subsidise mortgages and undermine the BoE, and Labour supporting buy to let.
Of the three, Labour probably still come out on top given they are more likely to give the green light to planning reform and new building.
Some other suggestions: - Abolish council tax (paid by tenants and inconsistent nationally) and stamp duty (a tax on mobility, discourage downsizing and efficient housing stock allocation) with an annual property tax on the value that is re-rated with house market index data annually - Vacant properties pay double the above rate, perhaps increasing with time to encourage efficient use of a scarce resource - Proper infrastructure investment to support new houses built.
Double council tax on vacant properties is already a thing in Scotland, once a certain period is allowed for selling it. As is council housing building.
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
They're getting pokier.
Agreed. New builds are mostly crap. My own flat is about 20 years old and is small enough (it's why 60s and 70s flats in more upmarket areas are so highly marketable: all that space,) but it's palatial compared to some of the shitty little broom cupboards that developers around here have crammed into available plots more recently. The same applies to bog standard new build houses - it's only luxury developments that provide upmarket finishes and square footage to match.
Besides which, you're already taking a considerable risk if you buy one, simply due to the risk of defect. Too many horror stories abound nowadays of badly built homes that the builders then refuse to put right, whilst the horrified owners discover that their NHBC certificate is completely worthless. There's even been an episode in Cambridge recently where it was announced that dozens of nearly finished new builds, many of which had already been bought off-plan, are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch because they've been so badly constructed. Though I suppose in that case at least the error is being properly corrected, before we've got to the stage where a load of poor saps have actually found themselves servicing eyewatering mortgages for the dubious honour of trying to survive in crumbling ruins.
New builds are a little smaller, which is inevitable given the decline in numbers of person per household; no pressing need for more six-bedroom homes on big sites. But overall, houses are much better heated, insulated and ventilated, and even those pokey new builds are actually better laid-out for age and disability needs.
The decline in square footage has nothing to do with the decline in household size and everything to do with making all the rooms smaller so that more properties will fit onto the available land. See also postage stamp-sized gardens.
In part it is because places are marketed by number of bedrooms rather than square meters like on the continent. It is the illusion of value.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
It'll happen more fine for some than for others.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
Sounds about right.
Of course, if I understand the electrification plans correctly, there's no time limit on the phasing out of ICE cars after their sale is banned. So we know where that will end: the haves with their driveways and their shiny, efficient electric cars; the have-nots engaged in an increasing desperate and expensive battle to keep their jalopies on the road as they start to dwindle in number, petrol becomes gradually harder to come by and desperately dear, and both repair bills and the price of second hand vehicles escalates.
Yes and the have-nots will increasingly be told "why don't you just charge at home/get a train" when neither is a viable option.
Hopefully people can come up with viable solutions, that gul-e system someone linked to before looks quite interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
When I got my home last year I made sure at off-road driveway was a priority. First time I've ever had one, but very grateful for it for the future; too many people don't have one and too many decision makers don't care about that.
Of course, expecting everyone to have off-road parking solves one problem by creating a whole new one. Covering the nation's entire stock of front gardens in tarmac, quite apart from being even uglier than the pervasive wheely bin scourge, is exactly what you do not want to be doing when you're trying to keep urban areas cool and prevent flash flooding in a more extreme climate.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
It'll happen more fine for some than for others.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
Sounds about right.
Of course, if I understand the electrification plans correctly, there's no time limit on the phasing out of ICE cars after their sale is banned. So we know where that will end: the haves with their driveways and their shiny, efficient electric cars; the have-nots engaged in an increasing desperate and expensive battle to keep their jalopies on the road as they start to dwindle in number, petrol becomes gradually harder to come by and desperately dear, and both repair bills and the price of second hand vehicles escalates.
Yes and the have-nots will increasingly be told "why don't you just charge at home/get a train" when neither is a viable option.
Hopefully people can come up with viable solutions, that gul-e system someone linked to before looks quite interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
When I got my home last year I made sure at off-road driveway was a priority. First time I've ever had one, but very grateful for it for the future; too many people don't have one and too many decision makers don't care about that.
Of course, expecting everyone to have off-road parking solves one problem by creating a whole new one. Covering the nation's entire stock of front gardens in tarmac, quite apart from being even uglier than the pervasive wheely bin scourge, is exactly what you do not want to be doing when you're trying to keep urban areas cool and prevent flash flooding in a more extreme climate.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
You are dramatically overestimating the difficulty.
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of vehicles are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
The Norwegians don't have our politicians trying to implement it.
The transition will happen fine, irrespective of politcians.
It'll happen more fine for some than for others.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
Sounds about right.
Of course, if I understand the electrification plans correctly, there's no time limit on the phasing out of ICE cars after their sale is banned. So we know where that will end: the haves with their driveways and their shiny, efficient electric cars; the have-nots engaged in an increasing desperate and expensive battle to keep their jalopies on the road as they start to dwindle in number, petrol becomes gradually harder to come by and desperately dear, and both repair bills and the price of second hand vehicles escalates.
Yes and the have-nots will increasingly be told "why don't you just charge at home/get a train" when neither is a viable option.
Hopefully people can come up with viable solutions, that gul-e system someone linked to before looks quite interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
When I got my home last year I made sure at off-road driveway was a priority. First time I've ever had one, but very grateful for it for the future; too many people don't have one and too many decision makers don't care about that.
Other opportunities to charge a car will be (1) at the supermarket while doing the weekly shop or (2) at work or (3) at the station car park while commuting. We need to get away from the 'filling station' mindset.
So they're basically the right-wing equivalent of Militant from the 1980s.
Basically a Party within a Party. Sunak and Hands should expel each and every one of them.
It could be good for Sunak - imagine his Conference speech:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched plans on migration. They are then pickled into a rigid anti-Woke dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Conservative leader – a Conservative leader - standing on Brighton beach telling migrants they aren't welcome"
Watched it again on iPlayer. It is actually worse on reflection. You can tell by their smirking Aussie response (which later turned to pained and bashful awkwardness as they got rightly barracked)
Cheating Aussie fucks
Ben Stokes got it exactly right. It WAS technically out. But would any captain want to win that way? Absolutely not. And nor, I suspect, do the Aussies, not after the ball tampering debacle
PLEASE not how it impacts on or to have a impact on. We have this word 'affect', so 'how it affects' and 'to affect'. These impact constructions are both cumbersome and ugly.
I don't mind the occasional foray into politics, or indeed folk dancing, aliens, AI, the fetid ugliness of Scots, and likeminded distractions, but ultimately we are here to talk about the cricket, and we should remember that
Also, and this will come as a surprise to PB-ers, I was THERE yesterday, at Lord's. Yes
The most utterly tedious, boring, snooze-fest "sport" in the world?
Cruellest aspect of British rule in South Asia was teaching the forebears of today's Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans how to play sodding cricket instead of, say, football.
You think the peoples of South Asia were looking for an excuse to roll around on the floor pretending to be hurt? I thought they had more self respect than that.
The Brits taught the South Americans football, in a similar(ish) climate. Why not South Asia?
Just when I start thinking I might be able to vote Labour next time, they come up with insanity like this.
Hell no.
All investments can go down as well as up, and every BTL parasite that can't afford their mortgage is a house freed up for someone to buy to live in, instead of trying to sweat an income from an indentured tenant.
All that does is slow down price increases for buying property, as the BTL landlords sell.
At the same time, the rental market supply contracts.
The actual solution to the property crisis is 8 million more properties.
You're not going to have me disagree that the solution is more properties in the long term, but fewer parasites seeking to have other's pay their mortgage for them is a good thing in the short term too.
That's not to say there should be no private rentals, but in a functioning market economy rentals should be cheaper than mortgages, and are in much of the world. If someone can afford to pay a landlord's mortgage, they can afford to pay their own, and for them to be paying someone else's instead is a market failure that needs addressing.
People or firms who invest their own money, not their tenant's money, into a property to let is entirely reasonable, but should be getting a return less than a mortgage.
I find it disturbing that you refer to human beings as “parasites”.
The positioning of all three parties on this has been awful. The Tories own the mess and show no willingness to change, the Lib Dems want to subsidise mortgages and undermine the BoE, and Labour supporting buy to let.
Of the three, Labour probably still come out on top given they are more likely to give the green light to planning reform and new building.
Some other suggestions: - Abolish council tax (paid by tenants and inconsistent nationally) and stamp duty (a tax on mobility, discourage downsizing and efficient housing stock allocation) with an annual property tax on the value that is re-rated with house market index data annually - Vacant properties pay double the above rate, perhaps increasing with time to encourage efficient use of a scarce resource - Proper infrastructure investment to support new houses built.
Watched it again on iPlayer. It is actually worse on reflection. You can tell by their smirking Aussie response (which later turned to pained and bashful awkwardness as they got rightly barracked)
Cheating Aussie fucks
Ben Stokes got it exactly right. It WAS technically out. But would any captain want to win that way? Absolutely not. And nor, I suspect, do the Aussies, not after the ball tampering debacle
I don't know what's more tedious:
Actual snooze-fest test cricket, or @Leon wittering on and on about it...
As long as we're poking historical holes, the first-time buyer house is probably higher spec today than in the 80s, if for no other reason than energy regs.
They're getting pokier.
Agreed. New builds are mostly crap. My own flat is about 20 years old and is small enough (it's why 60s and 70s flats in more upmarket areas are so highly marketable: all that space,) but it's palatial compared to some of the shitty little broom cupboards that developers around here have crammed into available plots more recently. The same applies to bog standard new build houses - it's only luxury developments that provide upmarket finishes and square footage to match.
Besides which, you're already taking a considerable risk if you buy one, simply due to the risk of defect. Too many horror stories abound nowadays of badly built homes that the builders then refuse to put right, whilst the horrified owners discover that their NHBC certificate is completely worthless. There's even been an episode in Cambridge recently where it was announced that dozens of nearly finished new builds, many of which had already been bought off-plan, are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch because they've been so badly constructed. Though I suppose in that case at least the error is being properly corrected, before we've got to the stage where a load of poor saps have actually found themselves servicing eyewatering mortgages for the dubious honour of trying to survive in crumbling ruins.
New builds are a little smaller, which is inevitable given the decline in numbers of person per household; no pressing need for more six-bedroom homes on big sites. But overall, houses are much better heated, insulated and ventilated, and even those pokey new builds are actually better laid-out for age and disability needs.
The decline in square footage has nothing to do with the decline in household size and everything to do with making all the rooms smaller so that more properties will fit onto the available land. See also postage stamp-sized gardens.
In part it is because places are marketed by number of bedrooms rather than square meters like on the continent. It is the illusion of value.
There's some truth to this - a lot of people look at property and think extra bedrooms = better, when in fact there may be no utility in spending a fortune to "upgrade" from X to X+1 bedrooms, where the extra bedroom is little bigger than a cupboard. But also the market holds families captive, because a family that wants a room for each child is going to blow a mammoth fortune on, for argument's sake, a ludicrously overpriced three bedroom shoebox home if they need the cells - one for them, one more for each of two kids - regardless of how pitifully small the cells offered actually are.
Deficit of available homes plus lack of adequate building regs = people paying over the odds for rubbish, because nice, spacious homes are in high demand and short supply.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
Just after we open the third runway then... 😀
Nuclear fusion generation will be up and running by then of course - 25 years ago it was just 30 years away.
You may jest but I believe there is 1 American firm who believes their version of fusion is only 5 years away and others are getting close.
I suspect 15 years may actually be realistic.
There's an American firm who actually believes their version of fusion is only 5 years away?
Or there's an American firm which is trying to convince investors that their version of fusion is only 5 years away?
Unless or until we have a working and operation fusion firm, I wouldn't trust any claims on viability further than I could throw them.
It's just a shame we've probably missed the opportunity to create a company called 'Political Crypto Blockchain Exchange' and get billions thrown at us by investors who salivate at those words.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
Watched it again on iPlayer. It is actually worse on reflection. You can tell by their smirking Aussie response (which later turned to pained and bashful awkwardness as they got rightly barracked)
Cheating Aussie fucks
Ben Stokes got it exactly right. It WAS technically out. But would any captain want to win that way? Absolutely not. And nor, I suspect, do the Aussies, not after the ball tampering debacle
I don't know what's more tedious:
Actual snooze-fest test cricket, or Leon wittering on and on about it...
The positioning of all three parties on this has been awful. The Tories own the mess and show no willingness to change, the Lib Dems want to subsidise mortgages and undermine the BoE, and Labour supporting buy to let.
Of the three, Labour probably still come out on top given they are more likely to give the green light to planning reform and new building.
Some other suggestions: - Abolish council tax (paid by tenants and inconsistent nationally) and stamp duty (a tax on mobility, discourage downsizing and efficient housing stock allocation) with an annual property tax on the value that is re-rated with house market index data annually - Vacant properties pay double the above rate, perhaps increasing with time to encourage efficient use of a scarce resource - Proper infrastructure investment to support new houses built.
It would be interesting to see what level of "annual property tax" you'd need for a cost-neutral abolition of Council Tax AND stamp duty. The other point about Council Tax is it is raised locally as a funding mechanism for local councils whereas stamp duty is a nationally levied form of taxation which goes straight to the Treasury.
IF you remove tenants from paying Council Tax, I presume you will be expecting landlords to seek to cover their annual property tax from rent income - interesting.
The double charge on vacant properties is already in effect in many areas - it doesn't stop properties being vacant for longer or shorter periods.
Absolutely agree re: the third point but as soon as you ask where those living in the new 500-flat development are going to register for a GP or where their children are going to go to school you get labelled a NIMBY. That's the problem with unrestricted, ill-considered pro-developer policies - in the end, the only winners are the developers, everyone else, both new residents and current residents, end up worse off.
Watched it again on iPlayer. It is actually worse on reflection. You can tell by their smirking Aussie response (which later turned to pained and bashful awkwardness as they got rightly barracked)
Cheating Aussie fucks
Ben Stokes got it exactly right. It WAS technically out. But would any captain want to win that way? Absolutely not. And nor, I suspect, do the Aussies, not after the ball tampering debacle
I don't know what's more tedious:
Actual snooze-fest test cricket, or @Leon wittering on and on about it...
If you prefer, I have opinions on: aliens, AI, Covid, slavery, Lab Leak, England's rugby coach, myself, my virility, Liz Truss's upside surprisingness, What3Words, "it was a bomb on a truck", Nordstream, travelling to the Solovetsky Islands, Brexit, Brexit being like having a baby, Georgian architecture, Gareth Southgate, neo-Caroline urbanism, and the exact number of women you need to sleep with to achieve mortal wisdom, but I suspect you won't be interested in these opinions either, especially the last
Watched it again on iPlayer. It is actually worse on reflection. You can tell by their smirking Aussie response (which later turned to pained and bashful awkwardness as they got rightly barracked)
Cheating Aussie fucks
Ben Stokes got it exactly right. It WAS technically out. But would any captain want to win that way? Absolutely not. And nor, I suspect, do the Aussies, not after the ball tampering debacle
I'm trying to imagine what bollocks you'd be coming up with now if an English wicket keeper had done the same to an Australian batsman. I presume you'd be hailing it as sporting genius and berating the Aussies for sour grapes.
Comments
Also owner households will take on increasing amounts of lodgers as the cost of living crisis bites.
Ultimately, in a tight market where vendors have a product that's in huge demand and that people cannot do without, they're going to screw the buyers until the pips squeak. Renters can and will be put in the position where they don't get to go on holidays, they don't get to buy new clothes, they can't afford to go out to restaurants - they just go to work, cover the cost of utility bills and supermarket budget range food, and hand all the rest of their income over in taxes and rent.
The tenant does, however, have the comfort of knowing that they're working from January until about May every year to pay for their landlord to enjoy the best seats in West End theatres, a new Rolex, and a fortnight away in a plush hotel in St Lucia, or perhaps on the Amalfi Coast. Which will doubtless give them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, to compensate for being unable to afford to switch on the central heating.
A family that has children that lets and has to move regularly due to renting will have more void times in the houses as they have to move and in-between re-lets than if they are stable in a home of their own.
Having said which a major distinction is possibly greater age = more likely to have children. From where I was standing it looked like on average the people coming to grief in the early 90s were young free and single, relatively speaking, which makes the whole eviction thing very slightly less stressy.
Sub-letting just seems to be far less common among young families who own a house, I guess because moving to a cheaper dwelling is more costly to them than to renters. (Edit: that doesn't make any sense. I don't have a good sense why. Maybe it is just pure affordability; you need to overcome some baseline to buy a house.)
According to the English Housing Survey the largest household is on average mortgage-owners.
Mortgage-owning households on average have 2.8 people per house, whereas private rentals OTOH have 2.3 people per house.
So I see no reason or evidence to suggest households shrink when they buy with a mortgage.
But yes, on the face if it this does look suspiciously like using finite resources to prop up the lifestyles of the well off at the expense of the entire population, including renters and the poor. There really is no such thing as a free lunch: even if Labour tries to regulate its way out of trouble by forcing the banks to prop up landlords rather than spending Government money to subsidise them, the banks will simply pass that cost on to other customers, in the form, for example, of higher interest rates on non-mortgage loans and even more derisory rates of interest payable to savers.
https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-2024-campaign-trump-advert-1810432
Seattle Times ($) - Former Republican U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert files paperwork to run for WA governor
Former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert has filed campaign paperwork to run for Washington state governor in 2024.
If Reichert follows through and runs for the open seat, he would instantly become the most prominent Republican in a field that is still taking shape, more than a year before the primary election.
Reichert, 72, registered his campaign with the state Public Disclosure Commission on Friday . . .
Reichert served seven terms in Congress, representing Washington’s 8th Congressional District, which spans the Cascade Mountains, covering King County suburbs as well as rural Kittitas and Chelan counties. He was first elected in 2004 . . .
The district was held by Republicans since its creation in 1983 up to Reichert’s retirement in 2019. The seat has been held by Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier ever since.
A moderate Republican, Reichert was critical of President Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign and during the two years they were both in office. He declined to endorse Trump in 2016 and said that he cast a write-in vote for president that year for Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.
He ultimately voted against the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, after voting for prior versions. He was a supporter of trade deals, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Trump scrapped after taking office.
He also mostly voted against abortion rights on an issue that has only gained prominence since he left office.
Prior to running for Congress, Reichert was King County sheriff for eight years. A longtime deputy, he was appointed sheriff in 1997 and ran unopposed for reelection in 2001. [SSI - And becoming world-famous for apprehending the "Green River" serial killer.]
Reichert has worked as a lobbyist since leaving Congress, representing Thermo Fisher Scientific, a Bothell-based pharmaceutical and health products company.
Over the years, he has repeatedly hinted at possible runs for governor or U.S. senator, but has never launched a campaign.
Twenty-two people, so far, have filed paperwork with the PDC, the state’s campaign finance watchdog, to run for governor in 2024.
Incumbent Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee has announced he is not running.
Leading Democratic candidates include Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Public Lands Commissioner Hilary Franz and state Sen. Mark Mullet. The most-prominent Republicans so far are Semi Bird, a military veteran and Richland School Board member, and Raul Garcia, a Yakima doctor who also ran in 2020.
SSI - IMHO as someone who worked (obviously unsuccessfully) to defeat him when he was in Congress, reckon Dave Reichert is strongest candidate Republicans could hope to find. Heck, IF he'd been running in 2004 instead of Dino Rossi for GOP, he'd have been elected in race where Democrat Christine Gregoire only won by 129 vote margin.
Which is perhaps unsurprising given the demographics etc
I'd add that I don't think this would really be using finite resources, rather it would be avoiding costly enforcement of the bank's contractual right in a potentially self-harming manner. I might be wrong, but I get the impression the charter is PR for what banks already do ad hoc.
For those reasons, I think Labour's policy is a mix of appealing to older median voters with assets, in the expectation that it won't offend any significant number of Labour-considerers, plus some desire to avoid a crisis of rental liquidity / supply.
"Honest Injun, chaps - THIS one is a genuine best-British SHEEP's bladder. You trust me, don't you?"
Besides which, you're already taking a considerable risk if you buy one, simply due to the risk of defect. Too many horror stories abound nowadays of badly built homes that the builders then refuse to put right, whilst the horrified owners discover that their NHBC certificate is completely worthless. There's even been an episode in Cambridge recently where it was announced that dozens of nearly finished new builds, many of which had already been bought off-plan, are going to have to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch because they've been so badly constructed. Though I suppose in that case at least the error is being properly corrected, before we've got to the stage where a load of poor saps have actually found themselves servicing eyewatering mortgages for the dubious honour of trying to survive in crumbling ruins.
https://twitter.com/DeSantisWarRoom/status/1674899610379116546
If you saw this in isolation without knowing any further context, it makes Trump actually seem reasonable. And that final 30 seconds of that ad is just plain creepy.
DeSantis has done the seemingly impossible and is even worse than Trump.
During my run this morning in St Neots, I ran along a street that only had off-road parking. Two electric cars were on charge, the cables stretching from the homes across the pavement. Both had little mat-style ramps out over the cables, but IMO a whole street of these may cause accessibility problems for people in wheelchairs or people pushing prams. And pavements can be bad enough as they already are..
An interesting problem.
Besides, he said probably not certainly, so it holds true.
Now we just have to work out how to build enough extra electricity generating capacity to power the entire national car fleet, and how to complete a commensurate upgrade of the National Grid, and what to do about everyone who lives in a flat rather than a house, all in time for the prohibition of the purchase of ICE cars in... 6.5 years' time.
That should be fun.
Can't see CON (as they currently are) doing that and certainly not LAB or LD!
Say the average age of a car in the UK is eight years. That means that the entire car fleet turns over every 16 years. Even if *every* car sold today was full on BEV, it would still only mean that an incremental 6% of vehicles would need to be electric powered each year.
The reality, though, is that it is changing much less quickly than that because (a) only about a third of new vehicle sales are electric today, and (b) the ones that are changing first are lower mileage ones. That means that this is a problem we have a quarter century to solve.
The vast majority of electric car charging happens overnight. And there's still a 15 GW difference between peak electricity usage (which is late afternoon in winter and which is about 37GW) and average nightime usage (about 20GW).
Electric cars mostly just fill that gap.
Go look at Norway: even though it is by far the highest electric car penetration in the world (80% of new cars last year!), it has caused essentially no problems to their grid.
If anyone starts talking nonsense about “Proven Reserves”…. I have some Peak Oil to sell them.
However, abortion would be MORE of an issue IF he runs for US Senator. In part because even a pro-life Gov would be significantly constrained by pro-choice legislature.
Bottom line to me is, for Republicans there really isn't any other realistic option out there, methinks.
And while Democrats are likely to keep their hold on the Governor's Mansion in Olympia, which one or another has occupied consecutively since 1984 election, with Dave Reichert in the race, it's no longer a slam dunk for the Dems.
The Redfield & Wilton and Deltapoll numbers don't show a lot of movement from last week.
The England sub sample from R&W has Labour on 48%, Conservatives on 28%, Liberal Democrats on 12%, Greens on 6%, Reform on 5%.
The swing from Conservative to Labour in England is 16.5% while the swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat is 9.5%.
As for Deltapoll, the lead remains at 23 points - 15 points among men and 31 points among women. The Conservatives lead 43-30 among 65+ voters (this was a group they won 64-17 in 2019 so that's a 17% swing in that key demographic).
The problem though is with regards to flats etc. The problems that exist with them today are still going to exist in 6 years time, and too many seem to have an "I have mine" attitude towards at-home charging that the problem for homes without any at-home charging capabilities is just not being taken seriously enough.
I suspect 15 years may actually be realistic.
For people with at-home charger capabilities everything will be fine.
For those without though, they may struggle but may equally lack the political voice to be taken seriously enough.
A bit like housing. Those who've got one and are doing fine and want house prices to keep going up have for too long been over-represented politically over those who are struggling to afford it.
The problem is that I don't see any political party especially interested in resolving the issues for those without at-home charging. The Tories and Lib Dems are predominantly represented by and for people who can have a drive at their own home. And Labour are overly-concerned with public transportation instead.
What do you think is going to happen when copper runs out? Or iron? Or coal? Or ...
Or there's an American firm which is trying to convince investors that their version of fusion is only 5 years away?
Unless or until we have a working and operation fusion firm, I wouldn't trust any claims on viability further than I could throw them.
Of course, if I understand the electrification plans correctly, there's no time limit on the phasing out of ICE cars after their sale is banned. So we know where that will end: the haves with their driveways and their shiny, efficient electric cars; the have-nots engaged in an increasing desperate and expensive battle to keep their jalopies on the road as they start to dwindle in number, petrol becomes gradually harder to come by and desperately dear, and both repair bills and the price of second hand vehicles escalates.
Goats are intelligent creatures and very determined, if sometimes wilful.
Hopefully people can come up with viable solutions, that gul-e system someone linked to before looks quite interesting, but I'm not holding my breath.
When I got my home last year I made sure at off-road driveway was a priority. First time I've ever had one, but very grateful for it for the future; too many people don't have one and too many decision makers don't care about that.
X
https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/cheffinsfineart/catalogue-id-srche10284
The only good Tory is Frankie Dettori — John Prescott.
Basically a Party within a Party. Sunak and Hands should expel each and every one of them.
It could be good for Sunak - imagine his Conference speech:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched plans on migration. They are then pickled into a rigid anti-Woke dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Conservative leader – a Conservative leader - standing on Brighton beach telling migrants they aren't welcome"
Cheating Aussie fucks
Ben Stokes got it exactly right. It WAS technically out. But would any captain want to win that way? Absolutely not. And nor, I suspect, do the Aussies, not after the ball tampering debacle
It used to be called “othering”
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/other-ideologies-social-credit
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/post/other-ideologies-ii-georgism
Actual snooze-fest test cricket, or @Leon wittering on and on about it...
Deficit of available homes plus lack of adequate building regs = people paying over the odds for rubbish, because nice, spacious homes are in high demand and short supply.
IF you remove tenants from paying Council Tax, I presume you will be expecting landlords to seek to cover their annual property tax from rent income - interesting.
The double charge on vacant properties is already in effect in many areas - it doesn't stop properties being vacant for longer or shorter periods.
Absolutely agree re: the third point but as soon as you ask where those living in the new 500-flat development are going to register for a GP or where their children are going to go to school you get labelled a NIMBY. That's the problem with unrestricted, ill-considered pro-developer policies - in the end, the only winners are the developers, everyone else, both new residents and current residents, end up worse off.
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
Spain, IMOP Insights poll:
PP-EPP: 33%
PSOE-S&D: 26% (+1)
VOX-ECR: 15%
Sumar-LEFT|G/EFA: 13% (-2)
ERC-G/EFA: 3% (+1)
Junts-NI: 2%
PNV-RE: 1%
EH Bildu-LEFT: 1%
...
+/- vs. 12-15 June 2023
Fieldwork: 27-29 June 2023
Sample size: 1,043"
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1675963507039240192