George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
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....
Also, when I was young, I was told that the older generation and capitalism was all about creating wealth so that the next generation can have a better life than the past. Now that the generation who was promised that better life are actually asking for it, the older generation (who benefitted from a period of huge taxes on the wealthy redistributed downwards into social safety nets, free education, free healthcare and better infrastructure) laugh at us and tell us we should be happy that life is shit...
Life's better than the past. Look at what you're doing right now. You could be watching horseracing or lifting things on a building site or taking care of a few kids all day. But the internet is more fun.
I am materially worse off than my parents. When my parents got a mortgage on a three bed house in 1997 it was £55k - the same house now is 6x that. Is the average wage 6x higher? Hell no. My parents also were not graduates and were in their early 20s (I was 6ish at that time)
In 1997 we had 10 million less *(fewer) people in the country. Since then we have immigration constantly more than house building. Immigration is something I believe you are a supporter of so when looking for someone to blame...look in the mirror
I am a supporter of immigration, yes; I'm an internationalist and see the impositions of borders as mere arbitrary constructs to separate people.
Maybe the bigger issue is the fact that something essential for existence in society, a decent roof over your head, is left down to the free market and treated as an asset, is more of an issue - the destruction of government owned housing stock that could always provide and affordable rented property to those who couldn't afford private rented accommodation may also be a huge problem.
Again the fault of your side when they decided social housing was allocated on need and working people found that they were spending years on lists because other people kept getting inserted above them in the list. Why should they bother supporting social housing when they have fuck all chance to get one. Even with social housing not enough would have been available when you "no borders" policy expands the population by 20% in a decade
As I said want someone to blame look in the mirror....it is people like you that never consider the consequences of your ideology.
I mean, I wasn't born when right to buy was a thing and I don't know what year the changes in social housing policy were implemented, but I don't think I would have been old enough to vote.
My ideology is pretty clear on housing - rent seeking is bad, landlordism is bad, houses should be free because it is a basic human need. I would also redistribute wealth; so houses with literally hundreds of empty rooms (literal palaces) could be repurposed for habitation.
I don't support the means testing of housing; nor anything that is a basic human need. Nor many things that are luxury human needs, even.
It is worth questioning how something that is a basic need has become so highly regulated and who actually benefits from this situation.
What? All the basic need markets (food, transport, education, medical care) are highly regulated.
My point is about the regulation of building and land. We are told it is necessary for various reasons but it has led to a situation where a society is unable fulfil the basic housing needs of a large number of its citizens.
Biden’s hydrogen bombshell leaves Europe in the dust The EU is investing billions into becoming a green energy superpower. But Washington’s Inflation Reduction Act means it’s the U.S. reaping the rewards. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/05/biden-hydrogen-europe-00104024 ...Jorgo Chatzimarkakis agrees. As the CEO of Hydrogen Europe, he’s one of the continent’s most influential lobbyists, having helped secure industry handouts worth billions of dollars. “We have a very robust framework in the EU, but we fail to attract our own companies because it’s all too complex,” he said. “We have ambitious targets, but we don’t have simple and efficient instruments to incentivize businesses.
“In their typical bureaucratic way, the Europeans will kill this business,” Chatzimarkakis said.
That leaves those who’ve helped launch the industry at risk of losing out, Chatzimarkakis added.
“Dung beetles spend hours rolling up balls of dung to attract females,” he said. “But there are some very smart dung beetles that just sit by the side and watch while others do hard work. Then they shoot in, take the dung ball, take the girl and run away with everything. That’s Joe Biden.”
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
I'm all for solar panels. But I'm curious as to whether solar panels on green land is a particularly environmentally positive use of land? Soil/grass is effectively a solar panel: it turns sunlight into energy (?). and then into food. I can't help wondering whether what is being gained in energy outweighs what is being lost. Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
I thought the reverse. He was pathetic. She was focused.
He crushed her, although Black's put down got the better of an otherwise sublime performance.
He didn't! He came out with pathetic pre-prepared lines, rather nervously I thought. She was focused on holding him and the government to account with sharp questions which he was unable to answer. Sublime performance! What!! You're winding me up.
It's Mexicanpete - he always has an original take on PMQs.
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
I mean, I am also a Green and there are circumstances where I'd be against local solar panels; mostly ones where the profits go into the hands of private companies and the negatives impact the local people. Whereas if a local solar co-op were set up and the profits were reinvested in the local area, compensating the fencing off of what was likely green spaces with public rights of way with new parks, investment in community spaces and local green infrastructure - I'd be well up for it. It is also ridiculous that energy must be sold at the price of the most expensive form of energy. This was come up with as an incentive to invest in green energy, as the profits would be greater, but doesn't allow energy companies that get more of their electricity from green sources to lower their prices and therefore attract more customers (which is also a profit maker and potential incentive).
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
Wolves move quite quickly, climate change is quite long term but much more dangerous than a pack of wolves. If you wait until we have catastrophic runaway climate change it will be too late.
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....
Also, when I was young, I was told that the older generation and capitalism was all about creating wealth so that the next generation can have a better life than the past. Now that the generation who was promised that better life are actually asking for it, the older generation (who benefitted from a period of huge taxes on the wealthy redistributed downwards into social safety nets, free education, free healthcare and better infrastructure) laugh at us and tell us we should be happy that life is shit...
Life's better than the past. Look at what you're doing right now. You could be watching horseracing or lifting things on a building site or taking care of a few kids all day. But the internet is more fun.
I am materially worse off than my parents. When my parents got a mortgage on a three bed house in 1997 it was £55k - the same house now is 6x that. Is the average wage 6x higher? Hell no. My parents also were not graduates and were in their early 20s (I was 6ish at that time)
In 1997 we had 10 million less *(fewer) people in the country. Since then we have immigration constantly more than house building. Immigration is something I believe you are a supporter of so when looking for someone to blame...look in the mirror
I am a supporter of immigration, yes; I'm an internationalist and see the impositions of borders as mere arbitrary constructs to separate people.
Maybe the bigger issue is the fact that something essential for existence in society, a decent roof over your head, is left down to the free market and treated as an asset, is more of an issue - the destruction of government owned housing stock that could always provide and affordable rented property to those who couldn't afford private rented accommodation may also be a huge problem.
Again the fault of your side when they decided social housing was allocated on need and working people found that they were spending years on lists because other people kept getting inserted above them in the list. Why should they bother supporting social housing when they have fuck all chance to get one. Even with social housing not enough would have been available when you "no borders" policy expands the population by 20% in a decade
As I said want someone to blame look in the mirror....it is people like you that never consider the consequences of your ideology.
I mean, I wasn't born when right to buy was a thing and I don't know what year the changes in social housing policy were implemented, but I don't think I would have been old enough to vote.
My ideology is pretty clear on housing - rent seeking is bad, landlordism is bad, houses should be free because it is a basic human need. I would also redistribute wealth; so houses with literally hundreds of empty rooms (literal palaces) could be repurposed for habitation.
I don't support the means testing of housing; nor anything that is a basic human need. Nor many things that are luxury human needs, even.
It is worth questioning how something that is a basic need has become so highly regulated and who actually benefits from this situation.
Landlords, property developers, and old homeowners - the conservative base.
Yes blame everyone else while pretending you carry no blame, tough you do.
I have been able to vote in general elections for 14 years. Now, I understand that in that time there have been an atypical number of general elections, but considering that my vote went to the winning candidate once, and that winning candidate is in a party of 14 MPs, I don't see how much impact my vote had.
I was answering the specific question of who has benefited from the current method of managing housing stock. Do you disagree that the main beneficiaries of how housing has been managed in the UK for essentially my entire lifetime are landlords, property developers and older homeowners, do you disagree that these three groups typically make up the base of the Conservative Party, or both?
Landlords? Not really, since about 2014. Tax and regulatory changes make it far less attractive to let out property now. The heyday of landlordism was 1988-2014.
If by older homeowners, you mean people who bought pre-2000, yes, they are big beneficiaries.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
Wolves move quite quickly, climate change is quite long term but much more dangerous than a pack of wolves. If you wait until we have catastrophic runaway climate change it will be too late.
To be fair quite a number of climate wolves have been turning up with regularity and eating people in the last decade or so.
Household cavalry now going down the Mile too with the King and Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales then to process through the streets of Edinburgh too. Live on BBC1 now
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
Maybe the houses could be built with good insulation, heat pumps and solar panels on the roof?
Household cavalry now going down the Mile too with the King and Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales then to process through the streets of Edinburgh too. Live on BBC1 now
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
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....
Also, when I was young, I was told that the older generation and capitalism was all about creating wealth so that the next generation can have a better life than the past. Now that the generation who was promised that better life are actually asking for it, the older generation (who benefitted from a period of huge taxes on the wealthy redistributed downwards into social safety nets, free education, free healthcare and better infrastructure) laugh at us and tell us we should be happy that life is shit...
Life's better than the past. Look at what you're doing right now. You could be watching horseracing or lifting things on a building site or taking care of a few kids all day. But the internet is more fun.
I am materially worse off than my parents. When my parents got a mortgage on a three bed house in 1997 it was £55k - the same house now is 6x that. Is the average wage 6x higher? Hell no. My parents also were not graduates and were in their early 20s (I was 6ish at that time)
In 1997 we had 10 million less *(fewer) people in the country. Since then we have immigration constantly more than house building. Immigration is something I believe you are a supporter of so when looking for someone to blame...look in the mirror
I am a supporter of immigration, yes; I'm an internationalist and see the impositions of borders as mere arbitrary constructs to separate people.
Maybe the bigger issue is the fact that something essential for existence in society, a decent roof over your head, is left down to the free market and treated as an asset, is more of an issue - the destruction of government owned housing stock that could always provide and affordable rented property to those who couldn't afford private rented accommodation may also be a huge problem.
Again the fault of your side when they decided social housing was allocated on need and working people found that they were spending years on lists because other people kept getting inserted above them in the list. Why should they bother supporting social housing when they have fuck all chance to get one. Even with social housing not enough would have been available when you "no borders" policy expands the population by 20% in a decade
As I said want someone to blame look in the mirror....it is people like you that never consider the consequences of your ideology.
I mean, I wasn't born when right to buy was a thing and I don't know what year the changes in social housing policy were implemented, but I don't think I would have been old enough to vote.
My ideology is pretty clear on housing - rent seeking is bad, landlordism is bad, houses should be free because it is a basic human need. I would also redistribute wealth; so houses with literally hundreds of empty rooms (literal palaces) could be repurposed for habitation.
I don't support the means testing of housing; nor anything that is a basic human need. Nor many things that are luxury human needs, even.
Housing has never been free. That’s an impossibility. Even in the heyday of Council house building, it was expected to turn a profit for the council.
Couple who insist on living like it's the 1930s complain that the cost of 1930s-type stuff is going up cos of hipsters. Where should our sympathies lie here, eh?
I hope they refuse any post 1930s medical intervention, and what are they doing allowing this to be published on the internet?
They didn't know it was happening. Their radio didn't carry it on The Light Programme. Tommy Handley didn't mention it on ITMA.
The King and Queen arrive at St Giles after a glorious procession down the Royal Mile accompanied by the Scottish crown
If only those moronic “not my king” idiots would shut up, they are ruining it.
Arn’t there now laws to move their protest to another place, not the wrong place where they can’t have it?
Well some were arrested at the coronation due to their potential disturbance, however it seems they will be left this time, though once the service begins the whingers won't be heard and are outnumbered by monarchists welcoming the King on the streets anyway
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
I'm all for solar panels. But I'm curious as to whether solar panels on green land is a particularly environmentally positive use of land? Soil/grass is effectively a solar panel: it turns sunlight into energy (?). and then into food. I can't help wondering whether what is being gained in energy outweighs what is being lost. Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
Solar panels should be on all commercial and industrial roofs. Every shopping centre, every factory, hotel, or out of town warehouse. Vast acreages of prime south facing terroir currently covered in concrete and tiles.
The French regulations to encourage building of solar panels on town car parks is also a no-brainer. Shade from the heat for cars, and a load of cheap energy.
The King and Queen arrive at St Giles after a glorious procession down the Royal Mile accompanied by the Scottish crown
If only those moronic “not my king” idiots would shut up, they are ruining it.
Arn’t there now laws to move their protest to another place, not the wrong place where they can’t have it?
Well some were arrested at the coronation due to their potential disturbance, however it seems they will be left this time, though once the service begins the whingers won't be heard and are outnumbered by monarchists welcoming the King on the streets anyway
Household cavalry now going down the Mile too with the King and Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales then to process through the streets of Edinburgh too. Live on BBC1 now
Any tanks?
Perhaps run some migrant children in front of the tanks and maybe "accidentally" run a few over? The people demand that we crush these alien invaders underfoot to discourage others.
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
He over eggs his case hugely.
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
I'm all for solar panels. But I'm curious as to whether solar panels on green land is a particularly environmentally positive use of land? Soil/grass is effectively a solar panel: it turns sunlight into energy (?). and then into food. I can't help wondering whether what is being gained in energy outweighs what is being lost. Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
You can definitely design your solar panel farm so that fauna and flora are still able to live and grow underneath - you can even design them to allow crops to grow underneath. I don't know if those designs are being used in the UK or how they change profitability, which is the main thing investors care about.
Household cavalry now going down the Mile too with the King and Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales then to process through the streets of Edinburgh too. Live on BBC1 now
Any tanks?
Fortunately for Republic they can protest without state tanks running them over, unlike say student protestors in Communist China in 1989
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
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....
Also, when I was young, I was told that the older generation and capitalism was all about creating wealth so that the next generation can have a better life than the past. Now that the generation who was promised that better life are actually asking for it, the older generation (who benefitted from a period of huge taxes on the wealthy redistributed downwards into social safety nets, free education, free healthcare and better infrastructure) laugh at us and tell us we should be happy that life is shit...
Life's better than the past. Look at what you're doing right now. You could be watching horseracing or lifting things on a building site or taking care of a few kids all day. But the internet is more fun.
I am materially worse off than my parents. When my parents got a mortgage on a three bed house in 1997 it was £55k - the same house now is 6x that. Is the average wage 6x higher? Hell no. My parents also were not graduates and were in their early 20s (I was 6ish at that time)
In 1997 we had 10 million less *(fewer) people in the country. Since then we have immigration constantly more than house building. Immigration is something I believe you are a supporter of so when looking for someone to blame...look in the mirror
I am a supporter of immigration, yes; I'm an internationalist and see the impositions of borders as mere arbitrary constructs to separate people.
Maybe the bigger issue is the fact that something essential for existence in society, a decent roof over your head, is left down to the free market and treated as an asset, is more of an issue - the destruction of government owned housing stock that could always provide and affordable rented property to those who couldn't afford private rented accommodation may also be a huge problem.
Again the fault of your side when they decided social housing was allocated on need and working people found that they were spending years on lists because other people kept getting inserted above them in the list. Why should they bother supporting social housing when they have fuck all chance to get one. Even with social housing not enough would have been available when you "no borders" policy expands the population by 20% in a decade
As I said want someone to blame look in the mirror....it is people like you that never consider the consequences of your ideology.
I mean, I wasn't born when right to buy was a thing and I don't know what year the changes in social housing policy were implemented, but I don't think I would have been old enough to vote.
My ideology is pretty clear on housing - rent seeking is bad, landlordism is bad, houses should be free because it is a basic human need. I would also redistribute wealth; so houses with literally hundreds of empty rooms (literal palaces) could be repurposed for habitation.
I don't support the means testing of housing; nor anything that is a basic human need. Nor many things that are luxury human needs, even.
It is worth questioning how something that is a basic need has become so highly regulated and who actually benefits from this situation.
Landlords, property developers, and old homeowners - the conservative base.
Yes blame everyone else while pretending you carry no blame, tough you do.
I have been able to vote in general elections for 14 years. Now, I understand that in that time there have been an atypical number of general elections, but considering that my vote went to the winning candidate once, and that winning candidate is in a party of 14 MPs, I don't see how much impact my vote had.
I was answering the specific question of who has benefited from the current method of managing housing stock. Do you disagree that the main beneficiaries of how housing has been managed in the UK for essentially my entire lifetime are landlords, property developers and older homeowners, do you disagree that these three groups typically make up the base of the Conservative Party, or both?
Landlords? Not really, since about 2014. Tax and regulatory changes make it far less attractive to let out property now. The heyday of landlordism was 1988-2014.
If by older homeowners, you mean people who bought pre-2000, yes, they are big beneficiaries.
Home builders' shares are also well down, gradually, over the last few years.
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
Although the Bishops on migration are closer to the view of people like you rather than the average voter
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
I'm all for solar panels. But I'm curious as to whether solar panels on green land is a particularly environmentally positive use of land? Soil/grass is effectively a solar panel: it turns sunlight into energy (?). and then into food. I can't help wondering whether what is being gained in energy outweighs what is being lost. Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
You can definitely design your solar panel farm so that fauna and flora are still able to live and grow underneath - you can even design them to allow crops to grow underneath. I don't know if those designs are being used in the UK or how they change profitability, which is the main thing investors care about.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
He over eggs his case hugely.
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
Even if we accept your premise that Monbiot wants a "radical reduction in living standards" (which I don't) - which would be worse, that or the continued warming of the planet that will lead to food deficits, fresh water deficits, soil degradation, irreversible collapses in multiple farming and fishing markets etc in my lifetime (and this is the best case scenario atm) or just the entire destruction of human civilisation as we know it potentially within a generation or two?
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.
Globalisation meant London became a world city, with world class culture, art, museums, restaurants, entertainment, shopping, sport. Arguably a better offering than any other city on earth. Also English speaking, with easy access to all of Europe for holidays and fun
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
Although the Bishops on migration are closer to the view of people like you rather than the average voter
Oh sure, there are plenty of actual Christians in the church. But plenty of planked-eye hypocrites like your good self.
Its the self-inflated faux pious pomposity that I had enough of. As for the views of "the average voter", they do not agree with your support for beating children. Which is why your party's vote share gets ever lower.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
What counts is not whether Monbiot's greenish readers get what he is saying; it is whether the top leaders in China, India, the USA, Africa and elsewhere get it. Such of the western general public capable of getting it are doing their little bit by recycling jampot covers and only flying 30 times a year. The task is for leaders, legislators, infrastructure designers and so on.
And, BTW, 100% of the conditions required for Monbiot's doomsday scenario are already in place, and have been for some time, and are not decreasing but increasing. I notice that by their actions it is obvious that a number of really powerful world leaders do not accept a single word of Monbiot's thesis.
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
I'm all for solar panels. But I'm curious as to whether solar panels on green land is a particularly environmentally positive use of land? Soil/grass is effectively a solar panel: it turns sunlight into energy (?). and then into food. I can't help wondering whether what is being gained in energy outweighs what is being lost. Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
You can definitely design your solar panel farm so that fauna and flora are still able to live and grow underneath - you can even design them to allow crops to grow underneath. I don't know if those designs are being used in the UK or how they change profitability, which is the main thing investors care about.
Tis our old friend the zero sum game; either the grass can have the sunlight or the panels can, or half and half, but you can't double-count. Actual case studies are unimpressive and tend to involve "grazing" a handful of manky geese.
I thought the reverse. He was pathetic. She was focused.
He crushed her, although Black's put down got the better of an otherwise sublime performance.
He didn't! He came out with pathetic pre-prepared lines, rather nervously I thought. She was focused on holding him and the government to account with sharp questions which he was unable to answer. Sublime performance! What!! You're winding me up.
It's Mexicanpete - he always has an original take on PMQs.
@wabbey The Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Dr David Hoyle, gives the Bidding:
‘Born of the radical conviction that we must care for one another, the NHS sets before us all the better angels of our nature. Here is high principle translated into best practice.’
'75 years ago we dared to hope and that was an extraordinary thing to do. We still dare to hope. We will give thanks. We will be proud. We will name the difficulty today, but above all - and gladly - we will name the hope that is the NHS.'
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.
“RFKJ is mad.”
I sort of like him. I know I shouldn’t.
Does anyone else know what I mean?
Why ?
He would be the Greenest US President yet, which would be good to have US leading and pushing on climate change.
And one of the most left wing US presidents in terms of economics. These things would be an interesting change would they not?
He also comes across with lots of presidential gravitas. In the bigger picture it would be a busy, strong, very interventionist White House. It would be really interesting 8 years, with lots of positive US leading on climate change, lots of things shaken up and pushed along in a very positive and likeable way.
Are we talking about the same guy ?
He's an antivaxx grifter of decades standing, running as a Republican sockpuppet.
Does the second part of that sentence depend on the first? I haven't heard the idea before that RFKJr is a Republican sockpuppet. Is there a reasonable basis for it, or does the conclusion depend solely on his being a combination of a leftwing Democrat (Bernie Sanders was called the same) and a long-term critic of Big Pharma and of at least most mass vaccination campaigns (in which case the logic is similarly totally wrong)? Since when did a person have to be rightwing to think (to put it crudely) that governments and their experts tell big whopping lies to help big business?
Give leftwing Dems a break! In 2016 I thought I was reading a Finbarr Saunders and His Double Entendres column when many were shouting that Sanders must be a stooge and that he would probably run third party at the same time that they seemed totally oblivious to the dirty work being done by Jill Stein of the Greens. When Stein was asked point blank what was the best way to fight Trump, she didn't even mention Trump in her reply but talked instead about the need to fight the danger posed by wicked Clinton. Bit of a giveaway, that.
I'll be amazed if RFKJr wins the presidency. But a Trump vs Kennedy contest would be quite a piece of theatre, probably the best offered by any of the most likely pairings.
I didn't say he's right wing. But he's on good terms with Trump, who considered him fit a job at one point, and practices a similar brand of dishonest populism. In fairness, I ought to have called him a Trumpite sockpuppet rather than Republican.
Or perhaps he is just simply nuts.
You're absolutely right about Stein.
Would a RFKJ White House have climate change action higher than any other candidate in the race, in you opinion Nigel? What would be the legacy of 8 years of a RFKJ White House? Quite positive on some things? An active, push things in right directions legacy?
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
He over eggs his case hugely.
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
Even if we accept your premise that Monbiot wants a "radical reduction in living standards" (which I don't) - which would be worse, that or the continued warming of the planet that will lead to food deficits, fresh water deficits, soil degradation, irreversible collapses in multiple farming and fishing markets etc in my lifetime (and this is the best case scenario atm) or just the entire destruction of human civilisation as we know it potentially within a generation or two?
The best way to cope with climate change is by means of increasing prosperity, especially in lower income countries.
Household cavalry now going down the Mile too with the King and Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales then to process through the streets of Edinburgh too. Live on BBC1 now
Any tanks?
Perhaps run some migrant children in front of the tanks and maybe "accidentally" run a few over? The people demand that we crush these alien invaders underfoot to discourage others.
Household cavalry now going down the Mile too with the King and Queen and Prince and Princess of Wales then to process through the streets of Edinburgh too. Live on BBC1 now
Any tanks?
Perhaps run some migrant children in front of the tanks and maybe "accidentally" run a few over? The people demand that we crush these alien invaders underfoot to discourage others.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
What counts is not whether Monbiot's greenish readers get what he is saying; it is whether the top leaders in China, India, the USA, Africa and elsewhere get it. Such of the western general public capable of getting it are doing their little bit by recycling jampot covers and only flying 30 times a year. The task is for leaders, legislators, infrastructure designers and so on.
And, BTW, 100% of the conditions required for Monbiot's doomsday scenario are already in place, and have been for some time, and are not decreasing but increasing. I notice that by their actions it is obvious that a number of really powerful world leaders do not accept a single word of Monbiot's thesis.
Or they think that they will be able to survive it because of their ability to leverage wealth and resources now - that they can be kings over kingdoms of ashes, that they will be lords of drowned peasants. Or, even, that they don't care because they'll be dead by then and anyway, this short term problem has to be sorted now and that affects reelection or if their are bread riots or whatever.
I am well aware that we are fucked when it comes to climate change. I could decide to fall into hedonistic nihilism, the only kind of nihilism that makes any kind of sense to me, and but alas I am poor and can't even afford decent hedonism.
As for your point about the "western general public ... only flying 30 times a year" you are aware that around 70% of flights are taken by around 15% of the population and that around a quarter of the UK have never flown in a plane, and in any given year more than a half haven't flown that year.
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
Regarding Matt Goodwin. I've just finished reading "Values, Voices, Vatever " by Goodwin in prep for an article, so I've replied backstage via PM. If you want to leave that conversation, there's a "leave conversation" button
I was unaware that this system even had a PMing ability...
I have not read that book - I did on the otherhand listen to Trashfuture's podcast series reading it and debating Matt Goodwin on the points that they make; unfortunately Goodwin, who often says the left aren't willing to debate, did not reply to their invitation to debate the points in his book via his publisher and, indeed, had most of the members of the podcast blocked on twitter.
(Go to VF.politicalbetting.com and sign in)
As to his lack of debate, well is anybody surprised? Most of the NatCon brigade who say they want to debate don't want an actual debate, they want their views accepted unquestioned.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
He over eggs his case hugely.
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
Even if we accept your premise that Monbiot wants a "radical reduction in living standards" (which I don't) - which would be worse, that or the continued warming of the planet that will lead to food deficits, fresh water deficits, soil degradation, irreversible collapses in multiple farming and fishing markets etc in my lifetime (and this is the best case scenario atm) or just the entire destruction of human civilisation as we know it potentially within a generation or two?
The best way to cope with climate change is by means of increasing prosperity, especially in lower income countries.
Don't people generally produce more CO2 the richer they get, both within countries and between countries - especially when you consider it from the point of view of final consumption?
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
He over eggs his case hugely.
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
Even if we accept your premise that Monbiot wants a "radical reduction in living standards" (which I don't) - which would be worse, that or the continued warming of the planet that will lead to food deficits, fresh water deficits, soil degradation, irreversible collapses in multiple farming and fishing markets etc in my lifetime (and this is the best case scenario atm) or just the entire destruction of human civilisation as we know it potentially within a generation or two?
The best way to cope with climate change is by means of increasing prosperity, especially in lower income countries.
How do we do that without making climate change worse?
And I'm well up for giving countries with lower average incomes more wealth, especially to their workers - let's campaign for all our products to be made in ways that give people liveable wages and make sure that resource extraction from those countries don't primarily benefit Western nations. They can nationalise their own resources, allow their workers to form unions and strike for better pay, and have improved standards of living by being given prioritisation for the use of resources on their lands. I'm sure the West will just let them do that and there would be no negative consequences.
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
Although the Bishops on migration are closer to the view of people like you rather than the average voter
Oh sure, there are plenty of actual Christians in the church. But plenty of planked-eye hypocrites like your good self.
Its the self-inflated faux pious pomposity that I had enough of. As for the views of "the average voter", they do not agree with your support for beating children. Which is why your party's vote share gets ever lower.
Moderator of Church of Scotland leading this service while Primus of the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church only in a supporting role at the side, a reverse of the coronation where the Archbishop of Canterbury led the service with the moderator in a supporting role. As reflects the fact the Presbyterian church is the national church in Scotland while the Anglican church is the national church in England
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
Although the Bishops on migration are closer to the view of people like you rather than the average voter
Oh sure, there are plenty of actual Christians in the church. But plenty of planked-eye hypocrites like your good self.
Its the self-inflated faux pious pomposity that I had enough of. As for the views of "the average voter", they do not agree with your support for beating children. Which is why your party's vote share gets ever lower.
How many people support beating children? Your government plans to use "reasonable force" - physical force - in "limited" circumstances on children. Beating them to remove them.
Go ask voters whether they support Beating Children. Your policy. Then come back to me.
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
Although the Bishops on migration are closer to the view of people like you rather than the average voter
Oh sure, there are plenty of actual Christians in the church. But plenty of planked-eye hypocrites like your good self.
Its the self-inflated faux pious pomposity that I had enough of. As for the views of "the average voter", they do not agree with your support for beating children. Which is why your party's vote share gets ever lower.
The average voter kicked HYUFD out of the council back in May
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.
Globalisation meant London became a world city, with world class culture, art, museums, restaurants, entertainment, shopping, sport. Arguably a better offering than any other city on earth. Also English speaking, with easy access to all of Europe for holidays and fun
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
Some random post about London showed up on my FB feed. The comments underneath were about 75% foreigners saying "oh wow I love London", "My favourite city" or "I've always dreamed of going" and 25% British people with union jack avatars saying that they hated it, that it was the worst place in the world or that it "wasn't an English city". Probably most countries have an element of this animosity towards the capital city, but in this country we've really dialled it up to 11.
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Because of the police investigation into a 'hate crime' at this pub, the pub was graffitied and had five windows damaged and has had to shut its doors.
I suspect most voters would agree with Braverman than when burgleries and robberies get little police action but this does there is a disproportionate direction of police priorities
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
There are more than enough police to pursue burgleries, they unfortunately just take too often the easy option, say not enough evidence to pursue it further.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
I think people like you are why I left the Church of England.
Although the Bishops on migration are closer to the view of people like you rather than the average voter
Oh sure, there are plenty of actual Christians in the church. But plenty of planked-eye hypocrites like your good self.
Its the self-inflated faux pious pomposity that I had enough of. As for the views of "the average voter", they do not agree with your support for beating children. Which is why your party's vote share gets ever lower.
The average voter kicked HYUFD out of the council back in May
No they didn't, I was not the incumbent in the first place.
The 41% of the vote I got was also 15% higher than the UK Tory NEV average
I thought the reverse. He was pathetic. She was focused.
He crushed her, although Black's put down got the better of an otherwise sublime performance.
He didn't! He came out with pathetic pre-prepared lines, rather nervously I thought. She was focused on holding him and the government to account with sharp questions which he was unable to answer. Sublime performance! What!! You're winding me up.
It's Mexicanpete - he always has an original take on PMQs.
It’s looking like MexPet has called this one correctly. Oil had the stronger lines and killer touch to have delighted the headline writers.
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.
Globalisation meant London became a world city, with world class culture, art, museums, restaurants, entertainment, shopping, sport. Arguably a better offering than any other city on earth. Also English speaking, with easy access to all of Europe for holidays and fun
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
Some random post about London showed up on my FB feed. The comments underneath were about 75% foreigners saying "oh wow I love London", "My favourite city" or "I've always dreamed of going" and 25% British people with union jack avatars saying that they hated it, that it was the worst place in the world or that it "wasn't an English city". Probably most countries have an element of this animosity towards the capital city, but in this country we've really dialled it up to 11.
I dunno. I think Paris and Parisians are maybe resented or hated EVEN more by regular regional French people - for almost identical reasons (too rich, too exclusive, too arrogant, too powerful, too pricey, too criminal, too full of foreigners and migrants, etc)
To show how holy is he is before he confirms that actually the British people actually do support beating children as his government rightfully wants to do actually.
Wanting to Beat Children. For the votes of racists who like Gollywogs. Whilst claiming to be the moral majority.
Before anyone complains I would have far less of a problem with someone else offering support for the "beat children with reasonable force in a limited way to remove them from the detention centre we painted over the cartoon drawings at" policy. Someone who said "its awful but the alternative is worse". I disagree but ok.
You can't claim to be the sole voice of morality whilst doing so. Which is what he is doing. Even quoting irrelevant opinion polls on something else.
Go ask the public if they think home office officials should beat children into submission in support of Stop The Boats. He won't, because deep down even he knows it is abhorrent.
I thought the reverse. He was pathetic. She was focused.
He crushed her, although Black's put down got the better of an otherwise sublime performance.
He didn't! He came out with pathetic pre-prepared lines, rather nervously I thought. She was focused on holding him and the government to account with sharp questions which he was unable to answer. Sublime performance! What!! You're winding me up.
It's Mexicanpete - he always has an original take on PMQs.
It’s looking like MexPet has called this one correctly. Oil had the stronger lines and killer touch to have delighted the headline writers.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
Sad I missed the ULEZ battle earlier. It's a load of pearl clutching from SUV owners who think they are next (they are) plus anti-vax 5G weirdos.
The false concern for poor people is cringeworthy. 30% of people don't have access to a car. That rises to 60% for people on low incomes. These people tend to live in the areas with highest air pollution too.
People also flippantly claim this is an attack on disabled people. Again, low car ownership in that cohort. If you really cared about disabled people, you'd been torching every car that sits on a pavement.
This is different for people in rural areas. That's why ULEZ is fair - it goes after polluters in cities, rather than where older cars or vans might be essential for survival. On that basis, I'd scrap VED, fuel duty etc and replace with congestion charging only. 60% of all car commutes in Edinburgh are less than 6 miles. 30% are less than 5.
The "London isn't an English city" stuff shows how unsustainable a lot of modern English nationalism is.
You can't build a new separate nation, England, on the basis of an exclusively ethnic identity, when so many millions in the big cities are very commonly partly, or at other times indeed entirely, from all Continental Europe, Africa and Asia. There are much more transcendent English traditions of Dissent and freedom, and an idyll of collaborative pastoral harmony, even, predating even the Normans, but sadly this escapes the average modern English nationalist.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
Moderator of Church of Scotland leading this service while Primus of the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church only in a supporting role at the side, a reverse of the coronation where the Archbishop of Canterbury led the service with the moderator in a supporting role. As reflects the fact the Presbyterian church is the national church in Scotland while the Anglican church is the national church in England
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere. We seem to have underestimated the chance of climate breakdown causing simultaneous harvest failure in the world's major breadbaskets. It's an issue I discuss in Regenesis, but it appears much worse than we thought
The trouble is when you endlessly cry Wolf, people stop believing you.
I mean, your analogy is faulty because Monbiot hasn't been crying wolf - he's been crying "hey, local wolf populations have seen their natural prey reduced and therefore are more likely to predate on sheep and eventually humans, maybe we should take long term action to prevent that, such as not over culling the natural prey of wolves or setting up better systems of defending against wolves" and, now he is crying "hey, the wolf is eating our sheep, but if we did those things I said before we may be able to actually reduce the number of sheep the wolves will eat or, who knows, maybe even stop the wolves needing to eat any sheep at all" and the next step is "help, the wolf is trying to eat me"
He over eggs his case hugely.
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
Even if we accept your premise that Monbiot wants a "radical reduction in living standards" (which I don't) - which would be worse, that or the continued warming of the planet that will lead to food deficits, fresh water deficits, soil degradation, irreversible collapses in multiple farming and fishing markets etc in my lifetime (and this is the best case scenario atm) or just the entire destruction of human civilisation as we know it potentially within a generation or two?
The best way to cope with climate change is by means of increasing prosperity, especially in lower income countries.
No it isn't, the buggers want concrete and houses and cars and foreign hols and stuff. Why do you think Africans presently have 1/30th of the footprint of us lot?
Sad I missed the ULEZ battle earlier. It's a load of pearl clutching from SUV owners who think they are next (they are) plus anti-vax 5G weirdos.
The false concern for poor people is cringeworthy. 30% of people don't have access to a car. That rises to 60% for people on low incomes. These people tend to live in the areas with highest air pollution too.
People also flippantly claim this is an attack on disabled people. Again, low car ownership in that cohort. If you really cared about disabled people, you'd been torching every car that sits on a pavement.
This is different for people in rural areas. That's why ULEZ is fair - it goes after polluters in cities, rather than where older cars or vans might be essential for survival. On that basis, I'd scrap VED, fuel duty etc and replace with congestion charging only. 60% of all car commutes in Edinburgh are less than 6 miles. 30% are less than 5.
Think how much easier those commutes would be had the M8 ended at Haymarket as planned.
To show how holy is he is before he confirms that actually the British people actually do support beating children as his government rightfully wants to do actually.
Wanting to Beat Children. For the votes of racists who like Gollywogs. Whilst claiming to be the moral majority.
Before anyone complains I would have far less of a problem with someone else offering support for the "beat children with reasonable force in a limited way to remove them from the detention centre we painted over the cartoon drawings at" policy. Someone who said "its awful but the alternative is worse". I disagree but ok.
You can't claim to be the sole voice of morality whilst doing so. Which is what he is doing. Even quoting irrelevant opinion polls on something else.
Go ask the public if they think home office officials should beat children into submission in support of Stop The Boats. He won't, because deep down even he knows it is abhorrent.
Do you think that is what is meant - beating children into submission? You usually make excellent, excoriating posts, but this is over the top. No-one is implying beating children.
Sad I missed the ULEZ battle earlier. It's a load of pearl clutching from SUV owners who think they are next (they are) plus anti-vax 5G weirdos.
The false concern for poor people is cringeworthy. 30% of people don't have access to a car. That rises to 60% for people on low incomes. These people tend to live in the areas with highest air pollution too.
People also flippantly claim this is an attack on disabled people. Again, low car ownership in that cohort. If you really cared about disabled people, you'd been torching every car that sits on a pavement.
This is different for people in rural areas. That's why ULEZ is fair - it goes after polluters in cities, rather than where older cars or vans might be essential for survival. On that basis, I'd scrap VED, fuel duty etc and replace with congestion charging only. 60% of all car commutes in Edinburgh are less than 6 miles. 30% are less than 5.
30% are less than 3 miles* (converting to imperial for PB...)
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.
Globalisation meant London became a world city, with world class culture, art, museums, restaurants, entertainment, shopping, sport. Arguably a better offering than any other city on earth. Also English speaking, with easy access to all of Europe for holidays and fun
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
In ways, you CAN create more inner London - in so far as young professional people will move to inner districts that their parents would have turned their noses up at. But that is coupled with greater distaste for places at or near the end of Tube lines, some full of foreign languages on the streets of narrow terraces, others bedecked in Union Jacks for royal happenings.
I thought the reverse. He was pathetic. She was focused.
He crushed her, although Black's put down got the better of an otherwise sublime performance.
He didn't! He came out with pathetic pre-prepared lines, rather nervously I thought. She was focused on holding him and the government to account with sharp questions which he was unable to answer. Sublime performance! What!! You're winding me up.
It's Mexicanpete - he always has an original take on PMQs.
It’s looking like MexPet has called this one correctly. Oil had the stronger lines and killer touch to have delighted the headline writers.
Everyone’s agree on that. However after the election Oli will be making a packet from directorships whilst Mhairi will be chopping fish in a restaurant, so we see who has last laugh.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
And you believe the home office?
Says the man who believes Braverman 😂
I don't believe Braverman. I don't believe any of 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.
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.
Globalisation meant London became a world city, with world class culture, art, museums, restaurants, entertainment, shopping, sport. Arguably a better offering than any other city on earth. Also English speaking, with easy access to all of Europe for holidays and fun
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
Yes indeed. If you could use your influence to see some article in the Speccie written to that effect it would be most appreciated.
London is an amazing place. I was there last week. Beautiful, busy, vibrant. But what I loved and envied most of all about it was the transport infrastructure.
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
“Now clearly as a Green-led council we want to see renewable local energy production, but what's the right amount? And what, perhaps more importantly, is the amount that our communities will accept? One field on the edge of a village might be fine, but if a whole village is surrounded by shiny panels, probably that isn't.”
He added: “We're not Nimbys, we want to take the right decisions but we need the national policy framework in which to make them.”
Fields on the edge of a village shouldn't be covered in solar panels.
(Imagine a far longer gap here)....
They are needed for housing to allow the village to expand
I'm all for solar panels. But I'm curious as to whether solar panels on green land is a particularly environmentally positive use of land? Soil/grass is effectively a solar panel: it turns sunlight into energy (?). and then into food. I can't help wondering whether what is being gained in energy outweighs what is being lost. Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
The solar panelled side of my roof has significantly less moss than the other side, so there are impacts, even there
(Correlation -> causation, obviously. Alternative explanantions about the solar panels being on south facing side and moss on north facing side are clearly baseless conjecture!)
Sad I missed the ULEZ battle earlier. It's a load of pearl clutching from SUV owners who think they are next (they are) plus anti-vax 5G weirdos.
The false concern for poor people is cringeworthy. 30% of people don't have access to a car. That rises to 60% for people on low incomes. These people tend to live in the areas with highest air pollution too.
People also flippantly claim this is an attack on disabled people. Again, low car ownership in that cohort. If you really cared about disabled people, you'd been torching every car that sits on a pavement.
This is different for people in rural areas. That's why ULEZ is fair - it goes after polluters in cities, rather than where older cars or vans might be essential for survival. On that basis, I'd scrap VED, fuel duty etc and replace with congestion charging only. 60% of all car commutes in Edinburgh are less than 6 miles. 30% are less than 5.
Not really like that on here, although there is some of that in the wider debate. Own a small car, zero tax rated and prefer it to an SUV even if they cost the same.
My concern here is not for the poorest, but for low and middle income workers. They may not be the poorest but they are amongst the worst impacted by the last decade.
And a general belief that major policy changes should be brought in with the aim of building a big consensus rather than an adversarial all or nothing approach. Some minor changes could have done that and made it far less contentious.
The adversarial approach taken by the majority of posters in favour of the scheme is unhelpful imo.
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
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.
Globalisation meant London became a world city, with world class culture, art, museums, restaurants, entertainment, shopping, sport. Arguably a better offering than any other city on earth. Also English speaking, with easy access to all of Europe for holidays and fun
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
The numbers don't lie, the places where Britain is unusually poor are the second tier cities;
And we've got a fairly shrewd idea of how to fix all of that. Unfortunately that means those cities becoming a bit more like London (denser, more public transport, less cars), England becoming a bit more continental (less centralised, more dispersed culturally and economically) and spending lots of money upfront in places that aren't politically marginal.
None of which are things the UK system or culture are going to do easily. If anything, things are getting worse on that front. (I've mused before about English devolution to the old ITV regions. Having centres big enough to support TV stations (even if all they made was Mr and Mrs) is the sort of number and scale of creative centres we ought to be able to sustain.)
Laura Ingram-Moore is a grifter but having to tear down a swimming pool on your own property is another example of the UK’s draconian planning policy.
I don't know the details of this case - but when someone builds something without planning permission, what would you have the system do? Say "don't do it again"?
Quite. If you don't enforce the system collapses. What was so hard about getting proper planning permission?
Rishi Sunak's spokesman defends his government's plans to make it easier to use "reasonable force" against child refugees, in order to remove them from the country, telling me force will only be used against children in "limited" circumstances.
Jenrick painting over cartoons in boat children reception centres yesterday proves he is an even harder barsteward.
There appears to be a competition inside the Tories as to whom can best appeal to their target voter.
Sadly, their target voter appears to be an ex-lag called Ron, with a long record of GBH offences.
After we had the Grays pub done for having a large collection of gollywog dolls behind the bar, the Home Secretary briefed the press that she had remonstrated with Essex police for enforcing the law.
Home Office officials were so appalled that they contacted Essex Police to apologise, and were told that no such thing had happened. Braverman's team had briefed she had shouted at the police because the pro-Gollywog vote is important to todays Conservative Party. That she hadn't actually done so doesn't change the fact that they said she had.
Essex police deny something - I guess we just have to believe that the police wouldn't lie, now don't we. I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The "she didn't actually berate them" story came from the Home Office, not Essex Police.
And you believe the home office?
And you believe the Home Secretary?
Nope - see my answer to Ben
OK: HS: "I shouted at Essex Police" EP: "We didn't get shouted at" HO: "We spoke to Essex Police and they denied it"
They can't all be lying.
As for the detention centres thing, what does using "reasonable force" to remove children mean? And it if is "reasonable" why is it "limited"?
Do I think that Home Office officials will pummel children into hospital? No. Do I think they will use physical restraint and physical handling that would be considered assault if you or I did it? Yes. Assault = beat.
And why not? Jenrick wants them to paint over cartoon pictures to stop these centres being "welcoming". So the idea is to mentally brutalise these kids - why not physically do so as well?
Comments
The EU is investing billions into becoming a green energy superpower. But Washington’s Inflation Reduction Act means it’s the U.S. reaping the rewards.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/05/biden-hydrogen-europe-00104024
...Jorgo Chatzimarkakis agrees. As the CEO of Hydrogen Europe, he’s one of the continent’s most influential lobbyists, having helped secure industry handouts worth billions of dollars. “We have a very robust framework in the EU, but we fail to attract our own companies because it’s all too complex,” he said. “We have ambitious targets, but we don’t have simple and efficient instruments to incentivize businesses.
“In their typical bureaucratic way, the Europeans will kill this business,” Chatzimarkakis said.
That leaves those who’ve helped launch the industry at risk of losing out, Chatzimarkakis added.
“Dung beetles spend hours rolling up balls of dung to attract females,” he said. “But there are some very smart dung beetles that just sit by the side and watch while others do hard work. Then they shoot in, take the dung ball, take the girl and run away with everything. That’s Joe Biden.”
The issue isn't the government wanting to beat defenceless children for their crime of being put on a small boat. No, the true moral people are upset that racist dolls aren't legal any more.
If there was an issue with what Essex police did, would not Braverman have *actually* raised it with the police? Instead of just dog whistling to racists but not actually doing it?
If there's not enough police to pursue burglaries whose fault is it? If Essex police done wrong then shouldn't she actually have acted?
That plank in your eye must be as big as a galaxy by now.
Solar panels on yer roof is another matter, of course. Nothing growing up there.
If by older homeowners, you mean people who bought pre-2000, yes, they are big beneficiaries.
Arn’t there now laws to move their protest to another place, not the wrong place where they can’t have it?
The French regulations to encourage building of solar panels on town car parks is also a no-brainer. Shade from the heat for cars, and a load of cheap energy.
Removing illegal immigrants is also something most people support, using means necessary to do so is not authorising disproportionate force against them either
It’s just not the case that goes that governments are doing “nothing” about climate change.
What they aren’t doing is pushing through the radical reduction in living standards that Monbiot wants.
https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-grow-crops-under-solar-panels-proves-to-be-a-bumper-crop-for-agrivoltaic-land-use
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/shepherds-can-cash-in-on-their-sheep-grazing-around-solar-panels/
That has attracted people around the world (and still does). London is immensely enticing
If something is in great demand and is naturally limited (they’re not making MORE inner London) it is going to be very expensive. That’s it. There’s no way round it
The only answer is either to make London much worse and less desirable so no one wants to live there (not a great option, I suggest) OR simply accept this and seek different alternatives
My solution would be to ramp up investment (esp transport!!!) in the UK’s second tier cities: Brum, Bristol, Manc, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle,
Glasgow, etc - so these become enticing, exciting places for young people to go and live
To an extent in somewhere like Manc that is already happening. But we can do much more
Its the self-inflated faux pious pomposity that I had enough of. As for the views of "the average voter", they do not agree with your support for beating children. Which is why your party's vote share gets ever lower.
And, BTW, 100% of the conditions required for Monbiot's doomsday scenario are already in place, and have been for some time, and are not decreasing but increasing. I notice that by their actions it is obvious that a number of really powerful world leaders do not accept a single word of Monbiot's thesis.
Really as bad as you fear on which issues?
Let’s give his manifesto a listen.
I am well aware that we are fucked when it comes to climate change. I could decide to fall into hedonistic nihilism, the only kind of nihilism that makes any kind of sense to me, and but alas I am poor and can't even afford decent hedonism.
As for your point about the "western general public ... only flying 30 times a year" you are aware that around 70% of flights are taken by around 15% of the population and that around a quarter of the UK have never flown in a plane, and in any given year more than a half haven't flown that year.
Sort of a thing an Australian cricketer would do. Tut
As to his lack of debate, well is anybody surprised? Most of the NatCon brigade who say they want to debate don't want an actual debate, they want their views accepted unquestioned.
And I'm well up for giving countries with lower average incomes more wealth, especially to their workers - let's campaign for all our products to be made in ways that give people liveable wages and make sure that resource extraction from those countries don't primarily benefit Western nations. They can nationalise their own resources, allow their workers to form unions and strike for better pay, and have improved standards of living by being given prioritisation for the use of resources on their lands. I'm sure the West will just let them do that and there would be no negative consequences.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/03/06/9e23f/2
Piles can be interpreted in whichever way one desires.
Go ask voters whether they support Beating Children. Your policy. Then come back to me.
To the tune of Eleanor Rigby:
'Captain Tom's daughter, building a spa in the night with the money she's made.
Using Dad's spade.'
https://twitter.com/will_nett/status/1676311194393538595?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Lol. She’s such a superb panto villain
The 41% of the vote I got was also 15% higher than the UK Tory NEV average
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12266539/Oliver-Dowden-clashes-Angela-Rayner-fills-PMQs.html
Too soon?
Wanting to Beat Children. For the votes of racists who like Gollywogs. Whilst claiming to be the moral majority.
Before anyone complains I would have far less of a problem with someone else offering support for the "beat children with reasonable force in a limited way to remove them from the detention centre we painted over the cartoon drawings at" policy. Someone who said "its awful but the alternative is worse". I disagree but ok.
You can't claim to be the sole voice of morality whilst doing so. Which is what he is doing. Even quoting irrelevant opinion polls on something else.
Go ask the public if they think home office officials should beat children into submission in support of Stop The Boats. He won't, because deep down even he knows it is abhorrent.
(AS LONG AS IT WAS YOUR JOKE)
I don't now who to believe. Neither is a trusted source.
The false concern for poor people is cringeworthy. 30% of people don't have access to a car. That rises to 60% for people on low incomes. These people tend to live in the areas with highest air pollution too.
People also flippantly claim this is an attack on disabled people. Again, low car ownership in that cohort. If you really cared about disabled people, you'd been torching every car that sits on a pavement.
This is different for people in rural areas. That's why ULEZ is fair - it goes after polluters in cities, rather than where older cars or vans might be essential for survival. On that basis, I'd scrap VED, fuel duty etc and replace with congestion charging only. 60% of all car commutes in Edinburgh are less than 6 miles. 30% are less than 5.
You can't build a new separate nation, England, on the basis of an exclusively ethnic identity, when so many millions in the big cities are very commonly partly, or at other times indeed entirely, from all Continental Europe, Africa and Asia. There are much more transcendent English traditions of Dissent and freedom, and an idyll of collaborative pastoral harmony, even, predating even the Normans, but sadly this escapes the average modern English nationalist.
Brexit row explodes with Kemi Badenoch signalling UK and EU are on brink of trade war
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1786970/UK-EU-trade-war-Kemi-Badenoch-brexit-electric-cars#conversation-wrapper
The UK’s points-based system is far too generous. Other countries think we are too generous. We need to make changes to make it tougher, such as on the health surcharge and raising the salary threshold, but Jeremy Hunt is blocking it.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1787186/suella-braverman-jeremy-hunt-migrants-tory-split-uk-economy#conversation-wrapper
London is an amazing place. I was there last week. Beautiful, busy, vibrant. But what I loved and envied most of all about it was the transport infrastructure.
(Correlation -> causation, obviously. Alternative explanantions about the solar panels being on south facing side and moss on north facing side are clearly baseless conjecture!)
My concern here is not for the poorest, but for low and middle income workers. They may not be the poorest but they are amongst the worst impacted by the last decade.
And a general belief that major policy changes should be brought in with the aim of building a big consensus rather than an adversarial all or nothing approach. Some minor changes could have done that and made it far less contentious.
The adversarial approach taken by the majority of posters in favour of the scheme is unhelpful imo.
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 The numbers don't lie, the places where Britain is unusually poor are the second tier cities;
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1674150794369683456
And we've got a fairly shrewd idea of how to fix all of that. Unfortunately that means those cities becoming a bit more like London (denser, more public transport, less cars), England becoming a bit more continental (less centralised, more dispersed culturally and economically) and spending lots of money upfront in places that aren't politically marginal.
None of which are things the UK system or culture are going to do easily. If anything, things are getting worse on that front. (I've mused before about English devolution to the old ITV regions. Having centres big enough to support TV stations (even if all they made was Mr and Mrs) is the sort of number and scale of creative centres we ought to be able to sustain.)
HS: "I shouted at Essex Police"
EP: "We didn't get shouted at"
HO: "We spoke to Essex Police and they denied it"
They can't all be lying.
As for the detention centres thing, what does using "reasonable force" to remove children mean? And it if is "reasonable" why is it "limited"?
Do I think that Home Office officials will pummel children into hospital? No. Do I think they will use physical restraint and physical handling that would be considered assault if you or I did it? Yes. Assault = beat.
And why not? Jenrick wants them to paint over cartoon pictures to stop these centres being "welcoming". So the idea is to mentally brutalise these kids - why not physically do so as well?