One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
Every fascist government does more privatisation - yes they direct the production towards whatever the government deem the "national good", but they use the private sector to do so. Fascist governments also redistribute wealth upwards - typically from the lower / middle classes who are not in the "volk" up to rich people within the "volk". The first targets of fascists are, typically, labour organisers - and we're seeing again that the street fascists of the US and UK are emerging during a period of increasing union significance and are planning to disrupt those organising efforts.
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
Interestingly the protest against ULEZ in Glasgow involved a march from Glasgow’s very affluent west end to the city centre. I’m sure these folk were motivated by selfless concern for the poor rather than whiny, frustrated entitlement.
Hang on, Glasgow has an affluent area?
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
I was thinking of you this morning because I saw a sign ‘pain free life transforming dentistry.’
If the last few local elections are anything to go by the local Tories are in as much, if not greater, trouble than the Tory MPs. Again, if the Tories get <100 MPs - a non impossibility - who will be the MPs left and will they be able to run a party of opposition, keep that infrastructure held together, keep those activists? (It's also important to note that many Tory activists and voters are older, and one issue with that is that older people tend to die more often). The party, as it is, is clearly in decline. That it took Truss to show that is a testament to all the things you say will keep it alive - but those things can keep the corpse imitating life for only so long. Again, the scenario that the Tories are looking at at the next GE seems to me like a perfect opportunity for them to die and potentially split. If you are irrelevant because Labour have a stonking majority, then splitting doesn't come with stakes. The Tory coalition of wets and fruitcakes has been the whole reason Tories have been unable to govern post the LD-Con coalition. One of those will win the heart of the party, and it looks like that will be the fruitcakes, and I don't imagine the wets will just go away - they have an ideology and they believe in it.</p>
The Conservatives were in far worse shape, at local level, in the mid 1990's. But, they recovered from that nadir. An Opposition regains council seats by default.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
They'll need that kind of money to keep their old banger on the road anyway. Cars cost money to keep running, especially if they're old. They'll get the scrap or resale value of their previous car, too, which will help. I belive that We Buy Any Car buy, er, any car. And there is a scrappage scheme, too.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
Look on Autotrader.
Within 30 miles of me, 83749 cars of which 232 under a grand. Thats 0.2% of which plenty wont be ULEZ compliant and a decent chunk of the rest won't pass their next MOT.
Where do you live? I found plenty ulez compliant under a grand near me. So what if its only 0.2% of cars? You only need one car.
SE1.
170,000 non compliant cars each day go into the new zone. Over a year about 700,000 non compliant cars go into the new zone. Autotrader has 232 cars under a grand, a lot of which are unsuitable.
It is remarkably flippant and counter productive to pretend people paying <£1k for a car is a workable solution to this problem.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
I disagree. Broad has been excellent, and Robinson is likely to be leading the attack for the next few years. Robinson has that bit more experience than Tongue too, and is a better bat.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
They'll need that kind of money to keep their old banger on the road anyway. Cars cost money to keep running, especially if they're old. They'll get the scrap or resale value of their previous car, too, which will help. I belive that We Buy Any Car buy, er, any car. And there is a scrappage scheme, too.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
Look on Autotrader.
Within 30 miles of me, 83749 cars of which 232 under a grand. Thats 0.2% of which plenty wont be ULEZ compliant and a decent chunk of the rest won't pass their next MOT.
Where do you live? I found plenty ulez compliant under a grand near me. So what if its only 0.2% of cars? You only need one car.
And finally, we've got to the "Let them eat cake" moment. But from a surprising direction - I had thought it might come from one of our righties.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
Sadly I think Broad and Anderson's time is over.
They have contributed exceptionally and we will miss them but time to look to the future now.
I drive, and will continue to drive, a non compliant diesel Hyundai. As I tow a caravan, towability is more important to me than driving into cities. If I need to enter a city, there are trains and buses.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
Except it won't impose a cost on people who can least afford it, will it?
Those who can afford it least probably don't have any sort of motor vehicle anyway.
And those on benefits are eligible for the scrappage scheme; I think we've established that the £2000 on offer is enough to buy a replacement.
If you want to say that there is a group of people who are in the sour spot (will struggle to cover the costs out of their own pocket, aren't eligible for support), fair enough. If you want to talk about what needs tweaking to reduce that gap, great. But a lot of what we're seeing here is fairly cynical fearmongering by a media that lives by fearmongering and politiciains who see an opportunity.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
Sadly I think Broad and Anderson's time is over.
They have contributed exceptionally and we will miss them but time to look to the future now.
Broad is fourth in most test wickets globally in 2023, was second in 2022. And gets written off, remarkable.
What has happened to both of them for several years, is that if "either" has a bad couple of games, "both" get written off. Probably neither should be, but what does Anderson underperforming have to do with Broad?
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
Interestingly the protest against ULEZ in Glasgow involved a march from Glasgow’s very affluent west end to the city centre. I’m sure these folk were motivated by selfless concern for the poor rather than whiny, frustrated entitlement.
Hang on, Glasgow has an affluent area?
Why has this been kept a secret?
Or is it a typo and you meant effluent.
I was thinking of you this morning because I saw a sign ‘pain free life transforming dentistry.’
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
It is representing poor people who mostly don't drive in London and whose lives are blighted and sometimes cut short by dirty air. It's really not that complicated.
As was so eloquently put upthread by @noneoftheabove - "We are simultaneously supposed to believe that virtually no cars are impacted and that these virtually non existant cars are causing a major problem."
And that anyone who is impacted can simply go and buy one of the 0.2% of cars available (any colour you like as long as it's rusted through) on Autotrader.
Why have we been having this exchange when it's all so simple.
The UK core vote for wet Tories is about 10% or less, the core vote for Nationalist right Conservatism is 25-30%+.
On a forced choice it would be the former wiped out under FPTP not the latter. Only with PR could wet Tories alone win MPs
If the Wet Tories split and took some of the people who ran the current Tory infrastructure, and some of the monied people who fund the current Tory coffers, and potentially even some of the papers that currently support the current Tory party - could that not change? Is that not the point of political parties - to make their argument and grow their voter base? I'm not saying they'll be a big force, but I think there are enough people who would typically vote Tory who look at the culture wars and are like "that's all a bit weird, a bit American, a bit much" and would happily vote for a Tory party without it. If the post GE Tory party is completely taken over by the Badenoch's of the party, why wouldn't the Wets see what they could possibly build? There are over 100 "One Nation Tories", almost a third of the PCP. If they all lose their seats, will they keep at it with a post GE Tory party, or will they think "actually, we could form our own party and try it again"?
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
Every fascist government does more privatisation - yes they direct the production towards whatever the government deem the "national good", but they use the private sector to do so. Fascist governments also redistribute wealth upwards - typically from the lower / middle classes who are not in the "volk" up to rich people within the "volk". The first targets of fascists are, typically, labour organisers - and we're seeing again that the street fascists of the US and UK are emerging during a period of increasing union significance and are planning to disrupt those organising efforts.
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
Most fascist governments I can think of, eg Mussolini's Italy, Peron's Argentina, Nazi Germany, or semi-fascist governments, eg Franco's Spain, did a great deal of nationalisation. Now the goal of nationalisation was to achieve the government's ends, usually military conquest, rather than to redistribute wealth from rich to poor.
I don't think that modern "street fascists" are motivated at all by anti-trade union feeling.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
My Party? Plaid Cymru?
I thought I would reciprocate assumptions about posters' parties.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
They'll need that kind of money to keep their old banger on the road anyway. Cars cost money to keep running, especially if they're old. They'll get the scrap or resale value of their previous car, too, which will help. I belive that We Buy Any Car buy, er, any car. And there is a scrappage scheme, too.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
Look on Autotrader.
Within 30 miles of me, 83749 cars of which 232 under a grand. Thats 0.2% of which plenty wont be ULEZ compliant and a decent chunk of the rest won't pass their next MOT.
Where do you live? I found plenty ulez compliant under a grand near me. So what if its only 0.2% of cars? You only need one car.
Perhaps when even tfl themselves claim "only" 8% of cars in the area covered are not ulez compliant then a 0.2% of cars on sale is not really going to cover the gap?
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
Except it won't impose a cost on people who can least afford it, will it?
Those who can afford it least probably don't have any sort of motor vehicle anyway.
And those on benefits are eligible for the scrappage scheme; I think we've established that the £2000 on offer is enough to buy a replacement.
If you want to say that there is a group of people who are in the sour spot (will struggle to cover the costs out of their own pocket, aren't eligible for support), fair enough. If you want to talk about what needs tweaking to reduce that gap, great. But a lot of what we're seeing here is fairly cynical fearmongering by a media that lives by fearmongering and politiciains who see an opportunity.
So no change there.
Again, @noneoftheabove posted some interesting stats about the numbers of non-compliant cars and the new zone.
Plus you don't have to be rich or poor for it to be iniquitous to have bought a £15k car five years ago and be told today you can receive £2k for it.
When even their own side thinks that the Tories would benefit from a spell of rest and recuperation in opposition, it is hard to argue positively that any by election can be safe for them.
Also first, I guess.
If they do lose the GE, and by a sizeable amount, there's going to be all hell breaking loose within the Party. It will be as acrimonious as anything seen on the Labour side in their own wilderness years.
I predict the Party will have one more lurch to the nasty right, embracing someone like Badenoch, who will then lose the next General Election comprehensively.
Only then will the Party come to its senses and realise that (barring the one exception of the Brexit election), ALL General Elections in the UK are won by winning the centre. A factional party, be it of Left or Right, loses.
I do wonder if this is the end of the Tory Party. I know it is the longest surviving continual political party, and therefore people like to think it has a special set of skills that will allow it to be immortal, but that's like saying "My nan is 103, so she can't possibly die as she's so good at not dying". No political party survives forever, and the death of political parties can be good and useful things - I think if the Tories really lost a lot of seats and really put someone like Badenoch in charge, it would have to split and the more centrist Tories would become a "Wet" party and the more right wing Tories would become a more UKippy party. That could also allow Labour to finally split (like it needs to), creating a neoliberal centrist party under Starmer and a real workers party to the left of it. LDs and Greens would still fit in that dynamic, but the Wets and Neolibs would fight more for LD voters and the workers party and the Greens would fight on the left.
Neither Labour nor the Tories would split under FPTP, under PR very possibly but not the current voting system
If the Tories get below 75 seats, and Labour get above 400 (as some models suggest) the Tories might split just because there isn't enough talent left to hold it together, and Labour might split because with a majority that size SKS can afford to kick out everyone to the left of Miliband and still have a governing majority. I also think with such an extreme change in number of seats, FPTP becomes a different issue - by splitting Labour SKS could see FPTP as a death blow for the left of the party, and the Wets or the Kippers could see a split when they have so few MPs anyway as the only way of being individually relevant.
Nope, if the Tories fell that low they would stick even closer together as otherwise under FPTP the right would be near wiped out. The wets would certainly be wiped out if they split from the Tories under FPTP then.
If Labour got a majority that big it would be entirely down to FPTP too and again the left united behind Labour mainly
I really struggle to see a '75 seat' type scenario. I'm reasonably certain that Labour will win most seats and I'm persuaded that a majority is certainly quite possible (maybe even the most likely outcome), but I still expect the polls to close up a little when the elections begin in earnest.
Plus the Conservative Party is hardly some fly-by-night Faragiste organisation; it has deep (if aging) roots and a large (if aging) activist and donor base. As we have seen with the LDs - a much smaller and less well-off party - it is very hard to truly wipe out an established party in British politics. A split seems truly unlikely to me - Bridgen-esque defections or short-lived splinters, maybe.
The Liberals pretty much got wiped out in the early 20th century. Why shouldn't that happen to the Tories in the 21st?
To be wiped out, you need a rival on the same side of the political spectrum.
However unpopular Scottish Labour became, they would never have been wiped out by the Scottish Conservatives. But, the SNP could present themselves as an uncorrupt (ha ha!) left wing alternative.
You're probably right, and certainly would be under a PR system. But FPTP is very unforgiving of being the third placed national party- they tend to get squeezed to nearly nothing.
So there is a pathway- a narrow one, but broader than it seemed two years ago.
Let's suppose the Conservatives do badly in 2024/5. Worse than the 165 Major got in 1997- after all, they're polling as badly/a bit worse than in the runup to '97, and the economic outlook looks worse. And whilst Starmer is no Blair, Sunak is no Major.
Now let's suppose that the Conservative response is to go full on comfort blanket culture war under Braverman or Badenoch. This gees up the remaining activists, but repels another slice of centre right voters.
Now let's suppose that the Lib Dems are opportunistic so-and-so's and go pale orange book on economics. More free market than Labour, socially at peace with the 21st century. You could go from a political map of Socialist to Conservative (with liberalism squeezed out) to a spectrum running Socialist to Liberal (wth conservatism squeezed out). Red Wall Boris Tories going to Labour, Blue Wall Tories going Lib Dem.
If I had to poinpoint where this fails, step 3 seems more likely than step 2. I'm not sure I'd put money on this future happening- it's still longish odds and a long time to wait. But it's less impossible than it has been for a long time.
No you couldn't.
The ceiling for Nationalist Conservatism is 43% as Boris proved in 2019.
The ceiling for Orange Book pro free market and socially liberal Liberalism is just 8% as Clegg proved in 2015.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
My Party? Plaid Cymru?
Tbf Adam Price did rather behave like a seedy used car salesman at times.
2030 is very bloody soon and the Great Transformation is going to be THE defining issue of lates 20s domestic politics. as big as Brexit was for the teens.
I am, comme d'habitude, shafted, I have an Isuzu truck which seems to be the only 2016 registration in the entire country which is Euro 5 not Euro 6.
The UK core vote for wet Tories is about 10% or less, the core vote for Nationalist right Conservatism is 25-30%+.
On a forced choice it would be the former wiped out under FPTP not the latter. Only with PR could wet Tories alone win MPs
Your evidence for this? I am not saying your wrong and it may be that the reverse takeover of the Conservative Party is as effective as you claim, but certainly when I was a member and activist during the early 2000s this was definitely not the case.
It does seem to me that the loonies have probably converted people like you to their cause, like the Borg from Star Trek. Some of your posts used to be a bit loony in the past, but generally you struck me as a centrist. It seems now that you are a fully paid up member of the frothing Brexity right wing populist wing that has brought about the problems.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
They'll need that kind of money to keep their old banger on the road anyway. Cars cost money to keep running, especially if they're old. They'll get the scrap or resale value of their previous car, too, which will help. I belive that We Buy Any Car buy, er, any car. And there is a scrappage scheme, too.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
Plenty of ulez compliant motors available for under a grand.
AA has 23,707 second hand cars for sale in London. 15 of which are under a grand.....
Look on Autotrader.
Within 30 miles of me, 83749 cars of which 232 under a grand. Thats 0.2% of which plenty wont be ULEZ compliant and a decent chunk of the rest won't pass their next MOT.
Where do you live? I found plenty ulez compliant under a grand near me. So what if its only 0.2% of cars? You only need one car.
There’ll be loads more on eBay and Facebook marketplace at that price
2030 is very bloody soon and the Great Transformation is going to be THE defining issue of lates 20s domestic politics. as big as Brexit was for the teens.
I am, comme d'habitude, shafted, I have an Isuzu truck which seems to be the only 2016 registration in the entire country which is Euro 5 not Euro 6.
Interesting. Of course this will do nothing for Tory popularity in the rural areas of Scotland and Wales. Not as if the SNP or Labour are likely to step in and rescue them - they can't, so far as I know, under the devolution settlement.
London's population was falling in the Sixties and the government was actively pushing companies to regions further away, in areas of new town growth. Cheaper to buy the same dwelling in a low-demand market than a high-demand market.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
I liked tongue too. He was the quickest English bowler too wasn’t he, and that’s quite important at Test level.
It’s important to note it’s not the historical seamers paradise at Headingley these days. Yorkshire have been playing Oat Ball this season scoring lots of runs very quickly and it’s started going well now.
I think there will be lots of spin in this test match. I think it will be great for batsmen and Harry is going to get lots of runs. But extra pace of wood and tongue and quality spinner is what England will need or Australians will get double hundreds. Ali and Root not good enough for this pitch imo - 2 for 200 both of them. Where are Englands proper specialists spinners who can bowl on anything? Bess has lost the plot and we don’t want him. It’s a nailed on draw I think.
My dads going to Fridays play. If they had extra ticket someone didn’t want I would have gone with them! I will watch on the telly. In 4K.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
Not really true, the new elite includes LD voting lawyers living in the home counties in homes they own or Labour voter public sector executives on 6 figure salaries living in north London or Cambridge.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
"the elite" = "people I don't like" as your post demonstrates to perfection.
Great point. I found it amusing when people like HYUFD tried to make out it was the "establishment" that had it in for the Eton and Oxford multi-millionaire Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Poor chap, it must be so awful to be the underdog
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
I’d check on the number (or maybe percentage) of no-balls the three bowled. And drop rhe worst offender.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
A lot of central London property that was 4-5x London average salary in the 90s is now 15-25x London average salary. It is not a human right, sure, but it is a problem.
It also brings into question how social housing should work. Should central London be reserved for those with very high and very low incomes only with the working middle completely excluded? If so expect the working middle to be a bit put out.....
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
Perhaps scope for an "I too" meme, for young professionals unfairly denied the right to live comfortably in their own house in London. All kinds of people can be the victims of injustice.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
My Party? Plaid Cymru?
I thought I would reciprocate assumptions about posters' parties.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
I liked tongue too. He was the quickest English bowler too wasn’t he, and that’s quite important at Test level.
It’s important to note it’s not the historical seamers paradise at Headingley these days. Yorkshire have been playing Oat Ball this season scoring lots of runs very quickly and it’s started going well now.
I think there will be lots of spin in this test match. I think it will be great for batsmen and Harry is going to get lots of runs. But extra pace of wood and tongue and quality spinner is what England will need or Australians will get double hundreds. Ali and Root not good enough for this pitch imo - 2 for 200 both of them. Where are Englands proper specialists spinners who can bowl on anything? Bess has lost the plot and we don’t want him. It’s a nailed on draw I think.
My dads going to Fridays play. If they had extra ticket someone didn’t want I would have gone with them! I will watch on the telly. In 4K.
Unless there's a lot of rain about I can't see a draw. England score too quickly and the extra implied time that gives the Australian batsmen means they'll either win or lose just playing normal test cricket.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
I'm still encouraging my kids to go to university.
Fortunately I can subsidise them as can my parents who see it as their duty but not everybody is that lucky.
The knock on effect is already happening. I have some friends who would like to start a family but where they rent and the type of property it is isn't suitable for raising a family.
Some of them think the only way they can start a family is moving back in with their parents/grandparents.
Cort's rolling process for wrought iron appears to have been developed by enslaved people in Jamaica. He wasn't the business owner, either. Interesting.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
Digging into this further - "Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one." - I've never lived in London, but is this true? I'd have said this was maybe true 25-30 years ago - but £1500 was worth rather more back then.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
I liked tongue too. He was the quickest English bowler too wasn’t he, and that’s quite important at Test level.
It’s important to note it’s not the historical seamers paradise at Headingley these days. Yorkshire have been playing Oat Ball this season scoring lots of runs very quickly and it’s started going well now.
I think there will be lots of spin in this test match. I think it will be great for batsmen and Harry is going to get lots of runs. But extra pace of wood and tongue and quality spinner is what England will need or Australians will get double hundreds. Ali and Root not good enough for this pitch imo - 2 for 200 both of them. Where are Englands proper specialists spinners who can bowl on anything? Bess has lost the plot and we don’t want him. It’s a nailed on draw I think.
My dads going to Fridays play. If they had extra ticket someone didn’t want I would have gone with them! I will watch on the telly. In 4K.
Unless there's a lot of rain about I can't see a draw. England score too quickly and the extra implied time that gives the Australian batsmen means they'll either win or lose just playing normal test cricket.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
2030 is very bloody soon and the Great Transformation is going to be THE defining issue of lates 20s domestic politics. as big as Brexit was for the teens.
I am, comme d'habitude, shafted, I have an Isuzu truck which seems to be the only 2016 registration in the entire country which is Euro 5 not Euro 6.
She wrote: "Available fast chargers, I had come to realise, more or less vanished north of the Watford Gap."
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
Every fascist government does more privatisation - yes they direct the production towards whatever the government deem the "national good", but they use the private sector to do so. Fascist governments also redistribute wealth upwards - typically from the lower / middle classes who are not in the "volk" up to rich people within the "volk". The first targets of fascists are, typically, labour organisers - and we're seeing again that the street fascists of the US and UK are emerging during a period of increasing union significance and are planning to disrupt those organising efforts.
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
Most fascist governments I can think of, eg Mussolini's Italy, Peron's Argentina, Nazi Germany, or semi-fascist governments, eg Franco's Spain, did a great deal of nationalisation. Now the goal of nationalisation was to achieve the government's ends, usually military conquest, rather than to redistribute wealth from rich to poor.
I don't think that modern "street fascists" are motivated at all by anti-trade union feeling.
This is just a misconception most people have about fascism - the Nazis actually privatised more public services than other contemporary governments.
It's also pretty ahistoric to claim someone like Franco did more nationalisation when half of the reason their was a civil war was because anarcho-syndicalists literally started to collectivise farms and entire swathes of the country after the election of a left leaning government and the Spanish capitalist class freaked out and demanded their stuff back.
Peronism is an interesting ideology that has created movements that, whilst based on Peronism, are not themselves fascistic and even arguably are leftist in nature. Peron's economic policies took foreign owned corporations into state ownership, but this was again a more corporatist model that still relied on market capitalism rather than a socialist / communist model. Peron also changed the nature of labour unions into more corporate like structures, and pulled back their ability to strike, for example.
The main issue fascists have with capitalism is the "decadence" they associate with it - with individualism comes scope for people from different backgrounds, different beliefs, different practices to come together and live amongst each other. Fascists cannot abide that. Capitalism also inherently attacks national borders - capitalism needs cheap immigrant labour to do the jobs that others won't do, as well as to keep the power of organised labour in check. Again, something fascists cannot abide. Fascists love private and individual property and are typically identifiable as a coalition out to destroy any increased mobilisation by the left.
As for anti-union feeling - I literally shared an article describing how one organised street fascist group plans to target unions more. And, from a street level, lots of anti-fascist demos have clear union presences and the fascists do not like them.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
Digging into this further - "Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one." - I've never lived in London, but is this true? I'd have said this was maybe true 25-30 years ago - but £1500 was worth rather more back then.
I suspect that in such cases the DT and DM deliberately pick certain examples so the readers can spot apparent anomalies and feel "oh, it's all right, he spent too much on avocado smoothies so it's his own fault".
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
£115 shirt unless it's a knock off.
Perhaps this is where people live differently - My last shirt cost me £9 from Ali Baba. It is a "holiday shirt".
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
Not really true, the new elite includes LD voting lawyers living in the home counties in homes they own or Labour voter public sector executives on 6 figure salaries living in north London or Cambridge.
The white working class however is very much not the new elite
"the elite" = "people I don't like" as your post demonstrates to perfection.
Great point. I found it amusing when people like HYUFD tried to make out it was the "establishment" that had it in for the Eton and Oxford multi-millionaire Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Poor chap, it must be so awful to be the underdog
To be fair to Boris, he probably did and does see himself as the underdog, compared to (say) Dave or (maybe) Rishi.
It's the theory of revolution in the book within 1984, isn't it? Revolutions happen when the Middle (or 2nd division elite) persuade the Low (the rest of us) to back them in overthrowing the High (1st division elite) before abandoning the Low to their fate.
See also Professor Jimmy Edwards Matthew Goodwin. Has got so far up the cultural hierarchy but still doesn't get to make the cultural weather. No wonder he's an unhappy bunny.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
My Party? Plaid Cymru?
I thought I would reciprocate assumptions about posters' parties.
Looks a better side. Sad for Jimmy, but maybe he's pushed on just a bit too long?
Rested for a test, still in with a shout if they were to prepare a pitch for him.
If the series is decided before the last test, would you bring back Anderson for a last hurrah and thank you, or would you use the opportunity to introduce young blood?
The UK core vote for wet Tories is about 10% or less, the core vote for Nationalist right Conservatism is 25-30%+.
On a forced choice it would be the former wiped out under FPTP not the latter. Only with PR could wet Tories alone win MPs
Your evidence for this? I am not saying your wrong and it may be that the reverse takeover of the Conservative Party is as effective as you claim, but certainly when I was a member and activist during the early 2000s this was definitely not the case.
It does seem to me that the loonies have probably converted people like you to their cause, like the Borg from Star Trek. Some of your posts used to be a bit loony in the past, but generally you struck me as a centrist. It seems now that you are a fully paid up member of the frothing Brexity right wing populist wing that has brought about the problems.
No @HYFUD is a polar opposite to @NickPalmer. Both change their line to match the new management within the party. Hence @HYUFD switched from Cameroon Remainer to frothing culture warrior Brexitist. It doesn't mean much other than the wind has changed.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
The reason young people don't move out of London is that there are fewer jobs outside of London - the vast majority of investment centres on London and that's where most jobs are. The other major cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow - see some graduates and commuting towns, like Brighton, also see large graduate populations.
I went to uni near Stoke. If it had any decent graduate jobs, I would have loved to stay there; I liked the area, I had got to know it over 5 years, it was cheap. But outside of working in a call centre for a phone company or a gambling company there was nothing really there.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
A lot of central London property that was 4-5x London average salary in the 90s is now 15-25x London average salary. It is not a human right, sure, but it is a problem.
It also brings into question how social housing should work. Should central London be reserved for those with very high and very low incomes only with the working middle completely excluded? If so expect the working middle to be a bit put out.....
Inner London became more desirable. (Outer London a _far_ more mixed story.) Why that happened is a good question and I think it arises from improving amenity like reducing pollution and crime, as well as changing preferences among young people about the lifestyles they want to live and the type and timing of families that they want to form. But price adjustments aren't too surprising in light of that suitability, combined with the challenges in making new housing in a city that's already heavily built up.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
£115 shirt unless it's a knock off.
She's lived IN THE SAME HOUSE IN HOLLAND PARK SINCE....
Well it's obvious what should happen, she should sell her house for £20m +/- and give old Freddie a few grand towards a deposit.
The policies that I tend to support are labelled in this thread as "populist right", or even "fruitcake", yet to me and thousands, if not millions, like me all across the West, these are commonsense policies, not remotely extremist or far-out. It's amazing to see what one considers just a normal position shared by a majority of voters - eg Brexit - described as extremist.
I come to this website every day because it is so far outside the Overton Window of all the other websites I look at, and I think it's vital to hear from a wide range of voices. I do just wonder if those that comment here are as extreme in their own way as us "populists"? May one ask what is wrong with politicians and policies striving to be popular? Isn't that what democracy is all about? Why would anyone vote for an "unpopulist"?!
The Tory "fruitcakes" would barely even make the Republican Party in the States, so moderate and milquetoast is UK politics. While Paris burns, we call it big news when a motorcyclist slightly rips a Just Stop Oil banner. It was telling that the event that single-handedly changed how we policed lockdowns was a couple of ladies going for a cup of tea by a lake. Ty to stop an Englishwoman having a nice cuppa, and you'll have problems...
According to my weltanschaaung, the Tories will still (just) win the next election, albeit by a majority of single figures. Why? Because even though they come across as out of touch, slow to react to situations, often downright wrong... despite all this I'd wager the electorate still sees them as the slightly better of the two options. What is people's issue with Labour? A lack of trust that Labour has the UK population's best interests at heart. The endless gibbering on about Net Zero, with a total tin ear for how normals hate this draconian, top-down vision of what government is there for.
Any time a politician uses the word "green" without it meaning chlorophyll, you know they're on the take. Someone, somewhere is paying them to force this non-green, non-eco agenda, whatever it's real motivations maybe. If Sunak just eases back on Net Zero and uses it as a wedge issue to differentiate between the sensible Tories and the radical Labour, he'll win easily.
Gavin Newsom and Robert F Kennedy Jr have moved into a mad 13.5 and and madder still 14.5 for POTUS.
Newsom's odds aren't mad, as if anything were to happen to Biden, he'd at least have a shot. RFKJ is mad.
I know! Yes he's running, yes he's a member of the 'tousley haired, touch football on their own beach' clan, but still what a stupid price. Don't get it at all.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
I'm still encouraging my kids to go to university.
Fortunately I can subsidise them as can my parents who see it as their duty but not everybody is that lucky.
The knock on effect is already happening. I have some friends who would like to start a family but where they rent and the type of property it is isn't suitable for raising a family.
Some of them think the only way they can start a family is moving back in with their parents/grandparents.
I do agree housing affordability is a big issue. I trot this out periodically - but I would like to see a world where someone on a teacher's salary could afford the mortgage on his own on what I consider the standard housing unit: a three bed semi in Timperley. House prices take up far too much of our salary and nobody benefits.
In general, I'm increasingly dubious about the benefits of a university education, and also of the view that there SHOULD be other routes into middle class professions that spending three years of not-necessarily-terribly-relevant university education - however cheaply or expensively obtained. Though of course at the ends of the bell curve there are probably cases of highly appropriate university to career paths, as well as utter wastes of time and money at the other end.
I can subsidise mine too, to some extent - but my children are numerous and my wealth is finite, and would £50k spent on a university education be better spent on a house? I'd say for most of my children, it probably would.
Of course, there is more to life than amassing wealth, and if university is seen as a thing to spend money on for its own sake rather than an investment in order to maximise future wealth, then all well and good.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
My Party? Plaid Cymru?
Tbf Adam Price did rather behave like a seedy used car salesman at times.
When I do vote for them they tend to go for wild arrangements like a rainbow coalition with UKIP. What's not to like?
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
The reason young people don't move out of London is that there are fewer jobs outside of London - the vast majority of investment centres on London and that's where most jobs are. The other major cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow - see some graduates and commuting towns, like Brighton, also see large graduate populations.
I went to uni near Stoke. If it had any decent graduate jobs, I would have loved to stay there; I liked the area, I had got to know it over 5 years, it was cheap. But outside of working in a call centre for a phone company or a gambling company there was nothing really there.
There are fewer jobs outside of London. But more than ten million people live in or within commuting distance of London, so there are options apart from the inner city for those who do want to work there. I am simply talking about people who can't afford inner London moving to - say - Essex or Berks or other places which were conceivably liveable for young workers thirty years ago.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
I'm still encouraging my kids to go to university.
Fortunately I can subsidise them as can my parents who see it as their duty but not everybody is that lucky.
The knock on effect is already happening. I have some friends who would like to start a family but where they rent and the type of property it is isn't suitable for raising a family.
Some of them think the only way they can start a family is moving back in with their parents/grandparents.
Is this a result of too much watching certain in law related videos in your circle?
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Surely most diesels in last 5-6 years will be euro 6 and ULEZ compliant.
Dropping Tongue seems daft to me. He looked by far the most dangerous of the England bowlers at Lords. They should have dropped Broad or Robinson instead.
I liked tongue too. He was the quickest English bowler too wasn’t he, and that’s quite important at Test level.
It’s important to note it’s not the historical seamers paradise at Headingley these days. Yorkshire have been playing Oat Ball this season scoring lots of runs very quickly and it’s started going well now.
I think there will be lots of spin in this test match. I think it will be great for batsmen and Harry is going to get lots of runs. But extra pace of wood and tongue and quality spinner is what England will need or Australians will get double hundreds. Ali and Root not good enough for this pitch imo - 2 for 200 both of them. Where are Englands proper specialists spinners who can bowl on anything? Bess has lost the plot and we don’t want him. It’s a nailed on draw I think.
My dads going to Fridays play. If they had extra ticket someone didn’t want I would have gone with them! I will watch on the telly. In 4K.
Unless there's a lot of rain about I can't see a draw. England score too quickly and the extra implied time that gives the Australian batsmen means they'll either win or lose just playing normal test cricket.
Pitch is pretty flat this year is what I’m explaining. If England declared 380 for 8, Aussies will take two days to score 700 and win the ashes.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
£115 shirt unless it's a knock off.
She's lived IN THE SAME HOUSE IN HOLLAND PARK SINCE....
Well it's obvious what should happen, she should sell her house for £20m +/- and give old Freddie a few grand towards a deposit.
FFS.
Freddie's parents are going to snaffle all that inheritance (Minus Hunt's chunk) and blow it all on cruises.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
The reason young people don't move out of London is that there are fewer jobs outside of London - the vast majority of investment centres on London and that's where most jobs are. The other major cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow - see some graduates and commuting towns, like Brighton, also see large graduate populations.
I went to uni near Stoke. If it had any decent graduate jobs, I would have loved to stay there; I liked the area, I had got to know it over 5 years, it was cheap. But outside of working in a call centre for a phone company or a gambling company there was nothing really there.
Isn't it obvious that if AI means companies need to employ far fewer people, then the capitalist model will run into problems? Of course it will look great to the companies - until they realise that people can't afford to buy their products any more, because they aren't employed.
I wouldn't bet on "graduates" lasting that much longer in the employment market than anyone else.
Probably a form a socialism is the answer. Either that or a very nasty economic crash and an attempt to pick up the pieces somehow.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
£115 shirt unless it's a knock off.
She's lived IN THE SAME HOUSE IN HOLLAND PARK SINCE....
Well it's obvious what should happen, she should sell her house for £20m +/- and give old Freddie a few grand towards a deposit.
FFS.
Bloody hell. I think that is so parodic that my brain censored it the first time round.
Since 1968. She is, no kidding, sitting on 8 figures non-CGT gain. But this is the Torygraph, so it's a searing injustice she has to pay IHT on some of it.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
I'm still encouraging my kids to go to university.
Fortunately I can subsidise them as can my parents who see it as their duty but not everybody is that lucky.
The knock on effect is already happening. I have some friends who would like to start a family but where they rent and the type of property it is isn't suitable for raising a family.
Some of them think the only way they can start a family is moving back in with their parents/grandparents.
I do agree housing affordability is a big issue. I trot this out periodically - but I would like to see a world where someone on a teacher's salary could afford the mortgage on his own on what I consider the standard housing unit: a three bed semi in Timperley. House prices take up far too much of our salary and nobody benefits.
In general, I'm increasingly dubious about the benefits of a university education, and also of the view that there SHOULD be other routes into middle class professions that spending three years of not-necessarily-terribly-relevant university education - however cheaply or expensively obtained. Though of course at the ends of the bell curve there are probably cases of highly appropriate university to career paths, as well as utter wastes of time and money at the other end.
I can subsidise mine too, to some extent - but my children are numerous and my wealth is finite, and would £50k spent on a university education be better spent on a house? I'd say for most of my children, it probably would.
Of course, there is more to life than amassing wealth, and if university is seen as a thing to spend money on for its own sake rather than an investment in order to maximise future wealth, then all well and good.
There is a reason why those who know aim for their children to go into a degree apprenticeship first and only head to Uni if suitable ones aren't available.
By the time twin A finishes her degree she will have earnt £150,000 or so, have 5 years relevant work experience and not be £60,000 or so in debt.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Very, very few engines will do 500k on the original crank bearings, cams, rings, etc. Also by that time every seal and ancillary (water pump, oil pump, alternator) will have been replaced multiple times over.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
300,000+ is not an unreasonable projection for many of the EVs now being built. The suspension might need attention from time to time.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
Think I had a roughly equivalent amount of debt in relation to salaries at his age after university. 1 years salary is not that much in a 40 year career.
The difference was it wasn't difficult to start repaying it once I had a reasonable job. Nowadays, the cost of rent in particular would make it much harder than it was back in the day.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Very, very few engines will do 500k on the original crank bearings, cams, rings, etc. Also by that time every seal and ancillary (water pump, oil pump, alternator) will have been replaced multiple times over.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
300,000+ is not an unreasonable projection for many of the EVs now being built. The suspension might need attention from time to time.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
Would you be seen dead in a Micra though
I have not been in one yet, Malc, but never say never.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
Think I had a roughly equivalent amount of debt in relation to salaries at his age after university. 1 years salary is not that much in a 40 year career.
The difference was it wasn't difficult to start repaying it once I had a reasonable job. Nowadays, the cost of rent in particular would make it much harder than it was back in the day.
Note that that £39k is in addition to 'student loans for fees and maintenance'. So on top of just the cost of going to university. Hard to see how he can have racked up that much debt! Though if he thinks £115 is a reasonable price for a shirt it starts to become apparent...
“I’ve been a university professor for more than 20 years,” says Goodwin in the video there. This is completely untrue. 20 years ago he was finishing his undergrad degree. He became a professor in 2015. If he can’t even get basic facts about this own life straight, I’m not certain why we should trust anything else he says!
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
Every fascist government does more privatisation - yes they direct the production towards whatever the government deem the "national good", but they use the private sector to do so. Fascist governments also redistribute wealth upwards - typically from the lower / middle classes who are not in the "volk" up to rich people within the "volk". The first targets of fascists are, typically, labour organisers - and we're seeing again that the street fascists of the US and UK are emerging during a period of increasing union significance and are planning to disrupt those organising efforts.
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
Most fascist governments I can think of, eg Mussolini's Italy, Peron's Argentina, Nazi Germany, or semi-fascist governments, eg Franco's Spain, did a great deal of nationalisation. Now the goal of nationalisation was to achieve the government's ends, usually military conquest, rather than to redistribute wealth from rich to poor.
I don't think that modern "street fascists" are motivated at all by anti-trade union feeling.
This is just a misconception most people have about fascism - the Nazis actually privatised more public services than other contemporary governments.
It's also pretty ahistoric to claim someone like Franco did more nationalisation when half of the reason their was a civil war was because anarcho-syndicalists literally started to collectivise farms and entire swathes of the country after the election of a left leaning government and the Spanish capitalist class freaked out and demanded their stuff back.
Peronism is an interesting ideology that has created movements that, whilst based on Peronism, are not themselves fascistic and even arguably are leftist in nature. Peron's economic policies took foreign owned corporations into state ownership, but this was again a more corporatist model that still relied on market capitalism rather than a socialist / communist model. Peron also changed the nature of labour unions into more corporate like structures, and pulled back their ability to strike, for example.
The main issue fascists have with capitalism is the "decadence" they associate with it - with individualism comes scope for people from different backgrounds, different beliefs, different practices to come together and live amongst each other. Fascists cannot abide that. Capitalism also inherently attacks national borders - capitalism needs cheap immigrant labour to do the jobs that others won't do, as well as to keep the power of organised labour in check. Again, something fascists cannot abide. Fascists love private and individual property and are typically identifiable as a coalition out to destroy any increased mobilisation by the left.
As for anti-union feeling - I literally shared an article describing how one organised street fascist group plans to target unions more. And, from a street level, lots of anti-fascist demos have clear union presences and the fascists do not like them.
The Instituto Nacional de Industria was a huge state-owned conglomerate in Spain, established in 1941, which took over the national airline, Iberia, its telecoms service, Telefonica, the car manufacturer, SEAT, dockyards, and a string of others manufacturers. The owners were compensated with bonds. Likewise, Spanish railways were nationalised in 1941.
That's obviously, a very different economic model to that favoured by the Spanish anarchists, but it was intended to make Spain entirely self-sufficient, and was very different to the liberal model of capitalism.
Franco favoured the landowning class and the church. He was much less keen on the industrialists, many of whom were after all, Catalans and Basques. Spain became a lot more capitalist after 1955, when Franco appointed economic technocrats to his cabinet.
Set against German privatisations (and looking at your paper, they seem to have been pretty small beer, in terms of the revenue they raised) are measures like an end to free collective bargaining; controls on dividends; controls on prices; rationing; autarky; the creation of State-controlled armament companies,
None of this is socialist, but it is all about subordinating liberal capitalism to the needs of national self-sufficiency, and war.
“I’ve been a university professor for more than 20 years,” says Goodwin in the video there. This is completely untrue. 20 years ago he was finishing his undergrad degree. He became a professor in 2015. If he can’t even get basic facts about this own life straight, I’m not certain why we should trust anything else he says!
He also says we have high rates of uncontrolled immigration and that we can’t control our borders. This is questionable at best. We have high rates of *controlled* immigration because the Government, who controls the borders, chose that.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
The reason young people don't move out of London is that there are fewer jobs outside of London - the vast majority of investment centres on London and that's where most jobs are. The other major cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow - see some graduates and commuting towns, like Brighton, also see large graduate populations.
I went to uni near Stoke. If it had any decent graduate jobs, I would have loved to stay there; I liked the area, I had got to know it over 5 years, it was cheap. But outside of working in a call centre for a phone company or a gambling company there was nothing really there.
Isn't it obvious that if AI means companies need to employ far fewer people, then the capitalist model will run into problems? Of course it will look great to the companies - until they realise that people can't afford to buy their products any more, because they aren't employed.
I wouldn't bet on "graduates" lasting that much longer in the employment market than anyone else.
Probably a form a socialism is the answer. Either that or a very nasty economic crash and an attempt to pick up the pieces somehow.
No, because the demography of the West is itself moving toward a world where a smaller share of the population works. It would be a problem if there were too FEW workers for the tech level - which would look like eternal 2022-23 with permanent upward negotiations of prices and pay. But people come up with ways to deal with too MANY workers. On the one hand, early retirement, longer time spent in education, and the gradual creep of the welfare state, which is much larger than it used to be even in 2000. On the other hand, new types of work. There's always a job for a young person who is conscientious enough to provide care for the vulnerable.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
Paragraph 2 is a load of nonsense. If you key in a now deceased vehicle SN53MHV you will find it is a 2003 Fiesta 1.3 and it is ULEZ compliant. You could buy a similar car for the weigh in value of your old diesel.
Contra-ULEZ extension is a typically spurious "nanny state" argument by your party.
The client media are well behind the view that ULEZ is bad, and extension implementation might well swing some Outer London seats. It doesn't mean it's not a bullshine populist and cynical argument.
Yep the bad old "client media".
The ULEZ charge will impose a cost on people who can least afford it.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Perhaps your party should start thinking about the people it is supposed to be representing. Rather than acting as sales agents for £40k cars.
My Party? Plaid Cymru?
I thought I would reciprocate assumptions about posters' parties.
“I’ve been a university professor for more than 20 years,” says Goodwin in the video there. This is completely untrue. 20 years ago he was finishing his undergrad degree. He became a professor in 2015. If he can’t even get basic facts about this own life straight, I’m not certain why we should trust anything else he says!
He also says we have high rates of uncontrolled immigration and that we can’t control our borders. This is questionable at best. We have high rates of *controlled* immigration because the Government, who controls the borders, chose that.
It is only so worthwhile to Fisk pound shop Streicher. He won't listen, and the people who find him useful don't care.
2030 is very bloody soon and the Great Transformation is going to be THE defining issue of lates 20s domestic politics. as big as Brexit was for the teens.
I am, comme d'habitude, shafted, I have an Isuzu truck which seems to be the only 2016 registration in the entire country which is Euro 5 not Euro 6.
iirc there is another exemption for commercial vehicles (vans, lorries and buses) otherwise red buses would be paying most.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
Think I had a roughly equivalent amount of debt in relation to salaries at his age after university. 1 years salary is not that much in a 40 year career.
The difference was it wasn't difficult to start repaying it once I had a reasonable job. Nowadays, the cost of rent in particular would make it much harder than it was back in the day.
Note that that £39k is in addition to 'student loans for fees and maintenance'. So on top of just the cost of going to university. Hard to see how he can have racked up that much debt! Though if he thinks £115 is a reasonable price for a shirt it starts to become apparent...
I was of the generation that didn't pay fees. Got something like the equivalent of maintenance from parents. Summer jobs but not term time. Still had significant debt by the time I was early twenties. Didn't live the life of riley or have shirts that cost much more than £15. Probably didn't know what an avocado was back then and would have definitely thought an apple was a fruit rather than a must have gadget....
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
There is neither a human right nor a strong historical tradition for youngish professionals of family formation age to live a few kilometres from the centre of London. For previous generations the solution was to move out of London. The current generation seems to perceive this as some sort of hate crime.
The reason young people don't move out of London is that there are fewer jobs outside of London - the vast majority of investment centres on London and that's where most jobs are. The other major cities - Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow - see some graduates and commuting towns, like Brighton, also see large graduate populations.
I went to uni near Stoke. If it had any decent graduate jobs, I would have loved to stay there; I liked the area, I had got to know it over 5 years, it was cheap. But outside of working in a call centre for a phone company or a gambling company there was nothing really there.
Isn't it obvious that if AI means companies need to employ far fewer people, then the capitalist model will run into problems? Of course it will look great to the companies - until they realise that people can't afford to buy their products any more, because they aren't employed.
I wouldn't bet on "graduates" lasting that much longer in the employment market than anyone else.
Probably a form a socialism is the answer. Either that or a very nasty economic crash and an attempt to pick up the pieces somehow.
No, because the demography of the West is itself moving toward a world where a smaller share of the population works. It would be a problem if there were too FEW workers for the tech level - which would look like eternal 2022-23 with permanent upward negotiations of prices and pay. But people come up with ways to deal with too MANY workers. On the one hand, early retirement, longer time spent in education, and the gradual creep of the welfare state, which is much larger than it used to be even in 2000. On the other hand, new types of work. There's always a job for a young person who is conscientious enough to provide care for the vulnerable.
So relieved to know that this isn't going to be a problem.
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
People on minimum wage jobs, as well as key service workers such as nurses and care assistants, perhaps single mothers with kids in different schools are wondering if they can afford a £2k per year tax on going to work.
Usually one might expect Labour to stand up for these people, no? Instead with get this reactionary hyperbole that makes no sense.
On your actual point, no, paying £12.50 to the mayor doesn’t reduce pollution. It does raise money though. Big bonus for all the out-of-towners without a vote, who get caught up and unwittingly fined. Great for the car plate closers too, not so much for the millions of innocents dragged into court for that over the years.
They won't pay £2k a year to go to work - they'll change the car. As has been discussed it isn't a lot of cars
You say it is not a lot of cars - do you have a link ?
And you ignore the real concern of the labour candidate in Uxbridge who I am certain is more aware of the position in his constituency than you are to be fair
The guy in Uxbridge wants to win his byelection and is triangulating. Good for him! And then he will back Khan because he'll be a London MP knowing where the power sits in the regional party.
Again, if the Tories are genuinely concerned about the budgets of the poorest, why are they so unconcerned on every other measure?
This isn't about the poor. Its about the rich. Because if a 20 year old Mini is compliant then practically any old banger which could be used as a daily driver is. Note - Daily Driver. I keep being told the poor will be taxed £2k a day to go to work. Driving what? Do you know how much it costs to keep something truly ancient in use as a daily driver?
This is NOT about them. Because once a car gets past a tipping point it is cheaper to change it. This is about the people who have some cherished old classic they take out on a Sunday. The ones on car forums talking about it. The ones who can afford that kind of hobby vehicle and the cost of keeping it running. Not the poor.
You do seem extremely agitated, annoyed, and intemperate this morning following my posting of Election Maps reporting on the conservative win in Cambridge yesterday due to their objection to congestion charging in the City and also the about turn of the Uxbridge labour candidate
You are relatively comfortably of, run a Tesla, and live in a lovely but sparsely populated area of the North East Scotland and it is easy for you to dismiss the problems of some car owners in the Greater London area but it does seem to be an issue and of course it is being challenged in the courts
I would also comment that it is labour councils who are also objecting to the plans
What does a single council by-election result have to do with anything?
I've also quoted you a couple of very direct points about the ownership / running costs of older cars which disarms the argument that poor workers will pay £2k a year in tax. I am painfully aware of how hand to mouth some people are. I am also aware that the same people who claim to be speaking for these people are directly responsible for the policies which are making their existence hand to mouth.
This is a culture war crayon objection, nothing more.
I'm going to touch wood when I say this as it'll probably go wrong now, but my other half's (Previously my brother's) 2008 Passat is still running very well. Car maintenance has struck me as more to do with luck than anything else.
You married your brother?
Car engines last about 500k miles just fine, it's merely fashion makes people sell them younger and they end up as taxis in West Africa.
Very, very few engines will do 500k on the original crank bearings, cams, rings, etc. Also by that time every seal and ancillary (water pump, oil pump, alternator) will have been replaced multiple times over.
So you can make an engine last 500k but it's going to require an unfeasible amount of money spent on it or meticulous maintenance (oil change every 2,000 - 3,000 miles) and a lot of luck. This reckoning might be different in shit holes with very low labour costs.
The Prius seems to be the mileage king and they seem to go to 300,000+ if they are well maintained. This is probably a consequence of being Atkinson Cycle rather than Otto Cycle engines and thereby less stressed.
300,000+ is not an unreasonable projection for many of the EVs now being built. The suspension might need attention from time to time.
My company Tesla is a vehicle that I can see us running for a long time. The bodyshell is likely to stay in production for a long time so it will still look fresh, the software will keep being updated, and as I have one of the last cars built with ultrasonic sensors I am happy with the current 3rd gen hardware and don't see huge leaps forward with HW4 which is coming next year.
We will get a quantum leap forward in terms of battery technology at some point in the future, at which point my <250kW charging rate will seem as primative as the >100kW on so many other EVs still on sale. Then I might change it. Otherwise? Why bother? There's very little on the vehicle to actually go wrong.
Sounds fantastic and long may it last. Although reading some of the posts I think Trigger's Broom applies to some of these longevity stories.
But your post "...my company Tesla..." illustrates why you are not well qualified to tell those less well off than you that they should be getting rid of their 2008 Nissan Micras.
How many cars do you think this covers? You mentioned Micra - I've had to go back to pre-2001 cars to find ones that aren't compliant, and they cost more than the post-2002 cars.
Good research skills. You win the whole argument about poorer people being able or not to afford a couple of grand on a car because the 2008 Nissan Micra is indeed ULEZ compliant.
Would you be seen dead in a Micra though
I have not been in one yet, Malc, but never say never.
2030 is very bloody soon and the Great Transformation is going to be THE defining issue of lates 20s domestic politics. as big as Brexit was for the teens.
I am, comme d'habitude, shafted, I have an Isuzu truck which seems to be the only 2016 registration in the entire country which is Euro 5 not Euro 6.
iirc there is another exemption for commercial vehicles (vans, lorries and buses) otherwise red buses would be paying most.
Interesting - Sheffield's charge zone is (Well currently) ONLY for commercial vehicles.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
Every fascist government does more privatisation - yes they direct the production towards whatever the government deem the "national good", but they use the private sector to do so. Fascist governments also redistribute wealth upwards - typically from the lower / middle classes who are not in the "volk" up to rich people within the "volk". The first targets of fascists are, typically, labour organisers - and we're seeing again that the street fascists of the US and UK are emerging during a period of increasing union significance and are planning to disrupt those organising efforts.
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
Most fascist governments I can think of, eg Mussolini's Italy, Peron's Argentina, Nazi Germany, or semi-fascist governments, eg Franco's Spain, did a great deal of nationalisation. Now the goal of nationalisation was to achieve the government's ends, usually military conquest, rather than to redistribute wealth from rich to poor.
I don't think that modern "street fascists" are motivated at all by anti-trade union feeling.
This is just a misconception most people have about fascism - the Nazis actually privatised more public services than other contemporary governments.
It's also pretty ahistoric to claim someone like Franco did more nationalisation when half of the reason their was a civil war was because anarcho-syndicalists literally started to collectivise farms and entire swathes of the country after the election of a left leaning government and the Spanish capitalist class freaked out and demanded their stuff back.
Peronism is an interesting ideology that has created movements that, whilst based on Peronism, are not themselves fascistic and even arguably are leftist in nature. Peron's economic policies took foreign owned corporations into state ownership, but this was again a more corporatist model that still relied on market capitalism rather than a socialist / communist model. Peron also changed the nature of labour unions into more corporate like structures, and pulled back their ability to strike, for example.
The main issue fascists have with capitalism is the "decadence" they associate with it - with individualism comes scope for people from different backgrounds, different beliefs, different practices to come together and live amongst each other. Fascists cannot abide that. Capitalism also inherently attacks national borders - capitalism needs cheap immigrant labour to do the jobs that others won't do, as well as to keep the power of organised labour in check. Again, something fascists cannot abide. Fascists love private and individual property and are typically identifiable as a coalition out to destroy any increased mobilisation by the left.
As for anti-union feeling - I literally shared an article describing how one organised street fascist group plans to target unions more. And, from a street level, lots of anti-fascist demos have clear union presences and the fascists do not like them.
The Instituto Nacional de Industria was a huge state-owned conglomerate in Spain, established in 1941, which took over the national airline, Iberia, its telecoms service, Telefonica, the car manufacturer, SEAT, dockyards, and a string of others manufacturers. The owners were compensated with bonds. Likewise, Spanish railways were nationalised in 1941.
That's obviously, a very different economic model to that favoured by the Spanish anarchists, but it was intended to make Spain entirely self-sufficient, and was very different to the liberal model of capitalism.
Franco favoured the landowning class and the church. He was much less keen on the industrialists, many of whom were after all, Catalans and Basques. Spain became a lot more capitalist after 1955, when Franco appointed economic technocrats to his cabinet.
Set against German privatisations (and looking at your paper, they seem to have been pretty small beer, in terms of the revenue they raised) are measures like an end to free collective bargaining; controls on dividends; controls on prices; rationing; autarky; the creation of State-controlled armament companies,
None of this is socialist, but it is all about subordinating liberal capitalism to the needs of national self-sufficiency, and war.
"None of this is socialist, but it is all about subordinating liberal capitalism to the needs of national self-sufficiency, and war"
If this is your conclusion then we don't disagree - fascists used the mode of liberal capitalism such as markets to produce what they saw as products for the "national good" and the profits made from those products went to private individuals rather than being redistributed to everyone. Which is why capitalism is more comfortable with fascism than even slight shifts leftwards, because slight shifts leftwards would redistribute profits and fascism does not.
CAPTAIN Tom’s daughter has confirmed that veterans like him fought in World War 2 so future generations could have a luxury spa and swimming pool complex.
My word, The Telegraph have realised young people cannot get onto the property ladder.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
Well obviously that all sounds shit and while it's a problem for that entire generation across the country, I would advise any teenager now including my own children neither to go to university nor to live in London, but: "In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
Sounds like he's got no assets, enjoys living in London and not much to show for his £39k with his likely main creditor being Mr Barclaycard - might as well go bankrupt tbh.
Think I had a roughly equivalent amount of debt in relation to salaries at his age after university. 1 years salary is not that much in a 40 year career.
The difference was it wasn't difficult to start repaying it once I had a reasonable job. Nowadays, the cost of rent in particular would make it much harder than it was back in the day.
Note that that £39k is in addition to 'student loans for fees and maintenance'. So on top of just the cost of going to university. Hard to see how he can have racked up that much debt! Though if he thinks £115 is a reasonable price for a shirt it starts to become apparent...
I was of the generation that didn't pay fees. Got something like the equivalent of maintenance from parents. Summer jobs but not term time. Still had significant debt by the time I was early twenties. Didn't live the life of riley or have shirts that cost much more than £15. Probably didn't know what an avocado was back then and would have definitely thought an apple was a fruit rather than a must have gadget....
Same here, albeit after 6-7 years at uni (research degree). Was able to pay it off and accumulate enough for a deposit on a house within about 4 years, with a little help on the deposit from mum and dad.
One of the few academics who understands the problems Britain is facing atm.
His prognosis is that a "new elite" of graduates and minorities are destroying Britain from the inside and there are "secret groups" who support this destruction. It's just a rehash of the old Nazi conspiracy of Jewish Bolshevism (renamed for the modern era as Cultural Marxism) just with more dog whistles.
He has decided that there is one true volk, sorry, Brits who hold "traditional values" and he must speak for them.
He points to a load of problems caused by capitalism and, instead of exploring the material impact of capitalism, does the job that all fascists movements do and attacks the left that do have material solutions to the problems caused by capitalism. Because whilst fascists like to claim they are anti elite they somehow end up becoming the street thugs of capital and the power of capital (and often the state) are much more willing to ally themselves with them than the left or even centrists.
The people who he claims have all the power, the "New Elite", are the same people with the least economic power barring literal children - Millennials and Gen Z graduates are being thrown to the meat grinder. And somehow because gains have been made on talking about accepting minority rights instead of actual material benefits for most people's lives, they are somehow winning? It's a load of tosh.
I don't agree with what you're saying about the left having material solutions to capitalism: capitalism isn't a problem that needs solving, it just needs doing well, which some countries do.
And the analysis of fascism being the street thugs of capitalism is partially true and partially false. The fact is, fascism is usually fairly indifferent about economics. It harnesses narratives and forces from different sides. So yes, there is a history of capitalists supporting fascism but also of them opposing it, and the fascist co-opting of leftist structures like unions and leftist narratives like the remote controlling elites bleeding the workers dry are also noteworthy.
The anti-academic anti-"elite" message is very worrying indeed because it's lifted straight from the very worst of mid-C20 totalitarianism, and it's not wrong to be drawing parallels with fascism because it flies far too close to that world for comfort.
Every fascist government does more privatisation - yes they direct the production towards whatever the government deem the "national good", but they use the private sector to do so. Fascist governments also redistribute wealth upwards - typically from the lower / middle classes who are not in the "volk" up to rich people within the "volk". The first targets of fascists are, typically, labour organisers - and we're seeing again that the street fascists of the US and UK are emerging during a period of increasing union significance and are planning to disrupt those organising efforts.
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
Most fascist governments I can think of, eg Mussolini's Italy, Peron's Argentina, Nazi Germany, or semi-fascist governments, eg Franco's Spain, did a great deal of nationalisation. Now the goal of nationalisation was to achieve the government's ends, usually military conquest, rather than to redistribute wealth from rich to poor.
I don't think that modern "street fascists" are motivated at all by anti-trade union feeling.
This is just a misconception most people have about fascism - the Nazis actually privatised more public services than other contemporary governments.
It's also pretty ahistoric to claim someone like Franco did more nationalisation when half of the reason their was a civil war was because anarcho-syndicalists literally started to collectivise farms and entire swathes of the country after the election of a left leaning government and the Spanish capitalist class freaked out and demanded their stuff back.
Peronism is an interesting ideology that has created movements that, whilst based on Peronism, are not themselves fascistic and even arguably are leftist in nature. Peron's economic policies took foreign owned corporations into state ownership, but this was again a more corporatist model that still relied on market capitalism rather than a socialist / communist model. Peron also changed the nature of labour unions into more corporate like structures, and pulled back their ability to strike, for example.
The main issue fascists have with capitalism is the "decadence" they associate with it - with individualism comes scope for people from different backgrounds, different beliefs, different practices to come together and live amongst each other. Fascists cannot abide that. Capitalism also inherently attacks national borders - capitalism needs cheap immigrant labour to do the jobs that others won't do, as well as to keep the power of organised labour in check. Again, something fascists cannot abide. Fascists love private and individual property and are typically identifiable as a coalition out to destroy any increased mobilisation by the left.
As for anti-union feeling - I literally shared an article describing how one organised street fascist group plans to target unions more. And, from a street level, lots of anti-fascist demos have clear union presences and the fascists do not like them.
The Instituto Nacional de Industria was a huge state-owned conglomerate in Spain, established in 1941, which took over the national airline, Iberia, its telecoms service, Telefonica, the car manufacturer, SEAT, dockyards, and a string of others manufacturers. The owners were compensated with bonds. Likewise, Spanish railways were nationalised in 1941.
That's obviously, a very different economic model to that favoured by the Spanish anarchists, but it was intended to make Spain entirely self-sufficient, and was very different to the liberal model of capitalism.
Franco favoured the landowning class and the church. He was much less keen on the industrialists, many of whom were after all, Catalans and Basques. Spain became a lot more capitalist after 1955, when Franco appointed economic technocrats to his cabinet.
Set against German privatisations (and looking at your paper, they seem to have been pretty small beer, in terms of the revenue they raised) are measures like an end to free collective bargaining; controls on dividends; controls on prices; rationing; autarky; the creation of State-controlled armament companies,
None of this is socialist, but it is all about subordinating liberal capitalism to the needs of national self-sufficiency, and war.
"None of this is socialist, but it is all about subordinating liberal capitalism to the needs of national self-sufficiency, and war"
If this is your conclusion then we don't disagree - fascists used the mode of liberal capitalism such as markets to produce what they saw as products for the "national good" and the profits made from those products went to private individuals rather than being redistributed to everyone. Which is why capitalism is more comfortable with fascism than even slight shifts leftwards, because slight shifts leftwards would redistribute profits and fascism does not.
I'd say that given a choice between fascism and communism, most capitalists will choose the former.
Given the choice between the social market economy of modern Germany, or Sweden, and fascism, most would choose the former. The former is a lot more profitable.
Comments
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/alek-yerbury-national-support-detachment-unions-strikes-pickets/
The multiple current crises we are experiencing is because it is the inevitable end point of neoliberal capitalism. All the issues Goodwin points out cannot be solved with more capitalism, and many of the pent up frustrations of the people who are experiencing worsening standards of living would be alleviated by less capitalist dogma: better social safety nets, more nationalisation of utilities, more focus on worker's rights, etc. That those in power and in the media redirect that frustration towards scapegoats rather than combat the real economic conditions most people are facing is part of the pathway to fascism and shows their willingness to embrace fascist talking points rather than do a little social democracy.
If the last few local elections are anything to go by the local Tories are in as much, if not greater, trouble than the Tory MPs. Again, if the Tories get <100 MPs - a non impossibility - who will be the MPs left and will they be able to run a party of opposition, keep that infrastructure held together, keep those activists? (It's also important to note that many Tory activists and voters are older, and one issue with that is that older people tend to die more often). The party, as it is, is clearly in decline. That it took Truss to show that is a testament to all the things you say will keep it alive - but those things can keep the corpse imitating life for only so long. Again, the scenario that the Tories are looking at at the next GE seems to me like a perfect opportunity for them to die and potentially split. If you are irrelevant because Labour have a stonking majority, then splitting doesn't come with stakes. The Tory coalition of wets and fruitcakes has been the whole reason Tories have been unable to govern post the LD-Con coalition. One of those will win the heart of the party, and it looks like that will be the fruitcakes, and I don't imagine the wets will just go away - they have an ideology and they believe in it.</p>
The Conservatives were in far worse shape, at local level, in the mid 1990's. But, they recovered from that nadir. An Opposition regains council seats by default.
170,000 non compliant cars each day go into the new zone.
Over a year about 700,000 non compliant cars go into the new zone.
Autotrader has 232 cars under a grand, a lot of which are unsuitable.
It is remarkably flippant and counter productive to pretend people paying <£1k for a car is a workable solution to this problem.
They have contributed exceptionally and we will miss them but time to look to the future now.
Those who can afford it least probably don't have any sort of motor vehicle anyway.
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/car-ownership-household-income
And those on benefits are eligible for the scrappage scheme; I think we've established that the £2000 on offer is enough to buy a replacement.
If you want to say that there is a group of people who are in the sour spot (will struggle to cover the costs out of their own pocket, aren't eligible for support), fair enough. If you want to talk about what needs tweaking to reduce that gap, great. But a lot of what we're seeing here is fairly cynical fearmongering by a media that lives by fearmongering and politiciains who see an opportunity.
So no change there.
What has happened to both of them for several years, is that if "either" has a bad couple of games, "both" get written off. Probably neither should be, but what does Anderson underperforming have to do with Broad?
And that anyone who is impacted can simply go and buy one of the 0.2% of cars available (any colour you like as long as it's rusted through) on Autotrader.
Why have we been having this exchange when it's all so simple.
I don't think that modern "street fascists" are motivated at all by anti-trade union feeling.
Rent costs Freddie and his friend each £825 a month and plus another £150 for bills. In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt and is paying it back in increments of £80 a month.
“Overall, it means I have less than £700 for everything else. At the beginning of each month that feels fine but with days to go until payday, I’m generally on toast and water for lunch.”
Getting a foot on the housing ladder is a distant hope.
Hypothetically, if the pair wanted to join forces and buy a property together, Knight Frank have just launched a two-bedroom, one bathroom flat in Kensal Rise for £615,000. A quick calculation suggests they’d need to find a deposit of £61,500 and be looking at finding £3,398 a month to service the mortgage.
“I don’t think people understand how disconnected our generation is with the concept of getting on the property ladder,” continues Peel.
“A lot of us feel that everything is working against us. Rent inflation is just crazy. My boss couldn’t believe that over 60pc of my salary goes on rent and paying back loans – and I’m not living in a flash penthouse. Ten years ago, a flat in zone 2 for £1,500 a month would’ve meant a showstopper. This isn’t one.
“Long term, I don’t know what the answer is. There used to be an assumption that, with a good degree and lots of hard work, you could live well in London and eventually get on the property ladder but my generation feels like we’re being shut out. I think a lot of people have accepted that instead of actively looking for the right answers to solve the problem.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy/buy-home-britain-different-experiences-generational-divide/
Plus you don't have to be rich or poor for it to be iniquitous to have bought a £15k car five years ago and be told today you can receive £2k for it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12260483/NADINE-DORRIES-handed-electric-car-5-000-miles-clock.html
That's "handed back" btw
2030 is very bloody soon and the Great Transformation is going to be THE defining issue of lates 20s domestic politics. as big as Brexit was for the teens.
I am, comme d'habitude, shafted, I have an Isuzu truck which seems to be the only 2016 registration in the entire country which is Euro 5 not Euro 6.
It does seem to me that the loonies have probably converted people like you to their cause, like the Borg from Star Trek. Some of your posts used to be a bit loony in the past, but generally you struck me as a centrist. It seems now that you are a fully paid up member of the frothing Brexity right wing populist wing that has brought about the problems.
"In addition, having taken out three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance while at university, Peel has accrued approximately £39,000 worth of debt" - how has he accrued £39,000 of debt IN ADDITION TO three years of student loans to cover fees and maintenance?
It’s important to note it’s not the historical seamers paradise at Headingley these days. Yorkshire have been playing Oat Ball this season scoring lots of runs very quickly and it’s started going well now.
I think there will be lots of spin in this test match. I think it will be great for batsmen and Harry is going to get lots of runs. But extra pace of wood and tongue and quality spinner is what England will need or Australians will get double hundreds. Ali and Root not good enough for this pitch imo - 2 for 200 both of them. Where are Englands proper specialists spinners who can bowl on anything? Bess has lost the plot and we don’t want him.
It’s a nailed on draw I think.
My dads going to Fridays play. If they had extra ticket someone didn’t want I would have gone with them! I will watch on the telly. In 4K.
It also brings into question how social housing should work. Should central London be reserved for those with very high and very low incomes only with the working middle completely excluded? If so expect the working middle to be a bit put out.....
RFKJ is mad.
Fortunately I can subsidise them as can my parents who see it as their duty but not everybody is that lucky.
The knock on effect is already happening. I have some friends who would like to start a family but where they rent and the type of property it is isn't suitable for raising a family.
Some of them think the only way they can start a family is moving back in with their parents/grandparents.
Cort's rolling process for wrought iron appears to have been developed by enslaved people in Jamaica. He wasn't the business owner, either. Interesting.
The original paper is on open access, btw.
Erm, no they haven't Nads.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110720073011/http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
It's also pretty ahistoric to claim someone like Franco did more nationalisation when half of the reason their was a civil war was because anarcho-syndicalists literally started to collectivise farms and entire swathes of the country after the election of a left leaning government and the Spanish capitalist class freaked out and demanded their stuff back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
Peronism is an interesting ideology that has created movements that, whilst based on Peronism, are not themselves fascistic and even arguably are leftist in nature. Peron's economic policies took foreign owned corporations into state ownership, but this was again a more corporatist model that still relied on market capitalism rather than a socialist / communist model. Peron also changed the nature of labour unions into more corporate like structures, and pulled back their ability to strike, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism#Perón's_policies
The main issue fascists have with capitalism is the "decadence" they associate with it - with individualism comes scope for people from different backgrounds, different beliefs, different practices to come together and live amongst each other. Fascists cannot abide that. Capitalism also inherently attacks national borders - capitalism needs cheap immigrant labour to do the jobs that others won't do, as well as to keep the power of organised labour in check. Again, something fascists cannot abide. Fascists love private and individual property and are typically identifiable as a coalition out to destroy any increased mobilisation by the left.
As for anti-union feeling - I literally shared an article describing how one organised street fascist group plans to target unions more. And, from a street level, lots of anti-fascist demos have clear union presences and the fascists do not like them.
It's the theory of revolution in the book within 1984, isn't it? Revolutions happen when the Middle (or 2nd division elite) persuade the Low (the rest of us) to back them in overthrowing the High (1st division elite) before abandoning the Low to their fate.
See also Professor Jimmy Edwards Matthew Goodwin. Has got so far up the cultural hierarchy but still doesn't get to make the cultural weather. No wonder he's an unhappy bunny.
I sort of like him. I know I shouldn’t.
Does anyone else know what I mean?
I went to uni near Stoke. If it had any decent graduate jobs, I would have loved to stay there; I liked the area, I had got to know it over 5 years, it was cheap. But outside of working in a call centre for a phone company or a gambling company there was nothing really there.
Well it's obvious what should happen, she should sell her house for £20m +/- and give old Freddie a few grand towards a deposit.
FFS.
I come to this website every day because it is so far outside the Overton Window of all the other websites I look at, and I think it's vital to hear from a wide range of voices. I do just wonder if those that comment here are as extreme in their own way as us "populists"? May one ask what is wrong with politicians and policies striving to be popular? Isn't that what democracy is all about? Why would anyone vote for an "unpopulist"?!
The Tory "fruitcakes" would barely even make the Republican Party in the States, so moderate and milquetoast is UK politics. While Paris burns, we call it big news when a motorcyclist slightly rips a Just Stop Oil banner. It was telling that the event that single-handedly changed how we policed lockdowns was a couple of ladies going for a cup of tea by a lake. Ty to stop an Englishwoman having a nice cuppa, and you'll have problems...
According to my weltanschaaung, the Tories will still (just) win the next election, albeit by a majority of single figures. Why? Because even though they come across as out of touch, slow to react to situations, often downright wrong... despite all this I'd wager the electorate still sees them as the slightly better of the two options. What is people's issue with Labour? A lack of trust that Labour has the UK population's best interests at heart. The endless gibbering on about Net Zero, with a total tin ear for how normals hate this draconian, top-down vision of what government is there for.
Any time a politician uses the word "green" without it meaning chlorophyll, you know they're on the take. Someone, somewhere is paying them to force this non-green, non-eco agenda, whatever it's real motivations maybe. If Sunak just eases back on Net Zero and uses it as a wedge issue to differentiate between the sensible Tories and the radical Labour, he'll win easily.
Let's see...
In general, I'm increasingly dubious about the benefits of a university education, and also of the view that there SHOULD be other routes into middle class professions that spending three years of not-necessarily-terribly-relevant university education - however cheaply or expensively obtained. Though of course at the ends of the bell curve there are probably cases of highly appropriate university to career paths, as well as utter wastes of time and money at the other end.
I can subsidise mine too, to some extent - but my children are numerous and my wealth is finite, and would £50k spent on a university education be better spent on a house? I'd say for most of my children, it probably would.
Of course, there is more to life than amassing wealth, and if university is seen as a thing to spend money on for its own sake rather than an investment in order to maximise future wealth, then all well and good.
I wouldn't bet on "graduates" lasting that much longer in the employment market than anyone else.
Probably a form a socialism is the answer. Either that or a very nasty economic crash and an attempt to pick up the pieces somehow.
Since 1968. She is, no kidding, sitting on 8 figures non-CGT gain. But this is the Torygraph, so it's a searing injustice she has to pay IHT on some of it.
He's handing Rayner her a***!
By the time twin A finishes her degree she will have earnt £150,000 or so, have 5 years relevant work experience and not be £60,000 or so in debt.
The difference was it wasn't difficult to start repaying it once I had a reasonable job. Nowadays, the cost of rent in particular would make it much harder than it was back in the day.
That's obviously, a very different economic model to that favoured by the Spanish anarchists, but it was intended to make Spain entirely self-sufficient, and was very different to the liberal model of capitalism.
Franco favoured the landowning class and the church. He was much less keen on the industrialists, many of whom were after all, Catalans and Basques. Spain became a lot more capitalist after 1955, when Franco appointed economic technocrats to his cabinet.
Set against German privatisations (and looking at your paper, they seem to have been pretty small beer, in terms of the revenue they raised) are measures like an end to free collective bargaining; controls on dividends; controls on prices; rationing; autarky; the creation of State-controlled armament companies,
None of this is socialist, but it is all about subordinating liberal capitalism to the needs of national self-sufficiency, and war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66100178
If this is your conclusion then we don't disagree - fascists used the mode of liberal capitalism such as markets to produce what they saw as products for the "national good" and the profits made from those products went to private individuals rather than being redistributed to everyone. Which is why capitalism is more comfortable with fascism than even slight shifts leftwards, because slight shifts leftwards would redistribute profits and fascism does not.
CAPTAIN Tom’s daughter has confirmed that veterans like him fought in World War 2 so future generations could have a luxury spa and swimming pool complex.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/captain-toms-generation-were-proud-to-make-sacrifices-so-we-could-have-luxury-pools-20230705237211
Given the choice between the social market economy of modern Germany, or Sweden, and fascism, most would choose the former. The former is a lot more profitable.