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.
But probably also the ones who were against vastly increasing the population post 2000. Sorry but that is one of the root causes of the inflationary housing cost, along with near zero interest rates and the relaxation of mortgage rules.
Actions have unexpected consequences. If the population had not increased by 20% since 2000 housing costs would be lower. If interest rates hadn't been artificially held low by the inflation target having housing costs stripped out people wouldn't have borrowed so much. None of these things were done by older homeowners who as you noted voted tory who wasn't the party that brought them in.
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director and Humanist society representative on the King and Queen.
“I’ve been a university professor for more than 20 years,” says Goodwin in the video there. This is completely untrue. 20 years ago he was finishing his undergrad degree. He became a professor in 2015. If he can’t even get basic facts about this own life straight, I’m not certain why we should trust anything else he says!
Some places let you call yourself 'assistant professor' etc instead of lecturer (not a fan personally). Maybe he means that.
Or he is just a complete arse...
He was an undergraduate 20 years ago. So, yes, some places let you call yourself "assistant professor" etc. instead of a lecturer, but he wasn't even any of that.
Goodwin CV: -2003: undergrad 2003-4: Master's student 2005-7: PhD student 2008-10: Research Fellow (first thing you could possibly describe as being a junior assistant professor) 2010-15: Associate Professor 2015- : Professor
If he'd said he'd been a professor for 13 years, OK, whatever. If he'd said he'd been a professor for 15 years, gauche, but I get what he means. But "more than 20 years" is bizarre.
The whole substack article reads like he's auditioning for the role of leader of a new UK fascist party.
His assertions are markedly at odds with the list of priority issues in the R&W poll chart posted in yesterday's header.
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
Because many of the "independence for England" people actually mean exclusively independence for people of one ethnicity.
How can you build a modern new nation on that kind of identity, without transporting away about 10 million people ?
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.
The measure goes well beyond a state created incentive for people to get rid of older polluting cars; some will have no choice but to do so, hence the scrappage scheme. The scheme, though, will not be sufficient to cover the value of some of the targeted cars and, in any case, it is only open to those on particular state benefits.
My brother in law was recently made redundant from a specialist architects in Birmingham. He has - eventually - managed to get re-employed near Woolwich (he moved down yesterday after having a very difficult time finding a one-bedroom no ensuite houseshare within his limited budget). He has a pay rise (cus it's London I guess) but living expenses up significantly. He then finds out about ULEZ. Poor bugger has a oldish (10years?) diesel BMW which won't fit the new rules and is now going to have to sell his car (which he loves) and buy another.
Is this fair? Dunno but I can't help feeling sorry for the chap.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
Because many of the "independence for England" people actually mean exclusively independence for people of one ethnicity.
How can you build a modern new nation on that kind of identity, without transporting away about 10 million people ?
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
Because many of the "independence for England" people actually mean exclusively independence for people of one ethnicity.
How can you build a modern new nation on that kind of identity, without transporting away about 10 million people ?
I think there might be quite a few racist nationalists north of the border too, if that isn't too much of a shock to you.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
Because many of the "independence for England" people actually mean exclusively independence for people of one ethnicity.
How can you build a modern new nation on that kind of identity, without transporting away about 10 million people ?
Indie London......
Well yes, but then new volkischer England reich tendency would also have the problem of places like Manchester, Birmingham and large parts of the Midlands..
This particular vision of modern English nationalism can only work with a level of ethnic resentment and exclusion as extreme France's, but probably more extreme, maybe like South Africa's in apartheid..
Hmm the Just Stop Oil protest at Wimbledon seems a bit half hearted compared to the snooker/cricket/horse racing/art galleries/traffic. Must have got told to make sure there wasn't too much disruption by their parents as they quite enjoy watching the tennis.
The King receives the Scottish crown from the Duke of Hamilton, having first been presented earlier with the Elizabeth sword
No more spoilers please, some of us are going to watch the highlights later.
Lol. We will all be watching it on catch up. HY will have it on replay at least three or four times. It will be part of his regular viewing box set that includes HMQ's funeral.
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.
There’s a map on Twitter showing what a map of Liverpool would look like if it had trams and metro like a similarly sized and important French city. Amazing. It’s absurd - obscene, even - that we don’t manage to do this
This should be top of Starmer’s To Do list. Improve transport in our second level cities
We actually have an advantage over our European peers in this respect. We are geographically smaller and more densely populated than France, Germany etc
That makes justifications for high speed rail harder (we don’t need them) and justifications for proper normal rail/tram/metro networks easier. Ideally linking all the great northern cities. HS2 has been a colossal wrong turning and misplaced endeavour. By now we could have had a genuine northern powerhouse urban public transport network
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.
But probably also the ones who were against vastly increasing the population post 2000. Sorry but that is one of the root causes of the inflationary housing cost, along with near zero interest rates and the relaxation of mortgage rules.
Actions have unexpected consequences. If the population had not increased by 20% since 2000 housing costs would be lower. If interest rates hadn't been artificially held low by the inflation target having housing costs stripped out people wouldn't have borrowed so much. None of these things were done by older homeowners who as you noted voted tory who wasn't the party that brought them in.
If the population had not increased by 20% then there would be far fewer workers available to the construction sector, and a far greater share of benefits recipients among the population. So things are a bit more complex than, expel the foreigners but keep them working here.
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.
There’s a map on Twitter showing what a map of Liverpool would look like if it had trams and metro like a similarly sized and important French city. Amazing. It’s absurd - obscene, even - that we don’t manage to do this
This should be top of Starmer’s To Do list. Improve transport in our second level cities
We actually have an advantage over our European peers in this respect. We are geographically smaller and more densely populated than France, Germany etc
That makes justifications for high speed rail harder (we don’t need them) and justifications for proper normal rail/tram/metro networks easier. Ideally linking all the great northern cities. HS2 has been a colossal wrong turning and misplaced endeavour. By now we could have had a genuine northern powerhouse urban public transport network
Maybe it doesn't because if it did all the residents would manage to find their way out?
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including me
Uncle Tom has probably turned so much in his grave that he could get sponsored for it.
Too soon?
Lol - excellent. Not all lefties are humourless souls then.
Given the alleged lack of right wing comedians, the humour deficit appears to be on the other side
ETA: And making Corbyn leader clearly shows the (Labour) left have a sense of humour. Mind, you, I suppose you could say the same about Truss and Conservative members!
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
Because many of the "independence for England" people actually mean exclusively independence for people of one ethnicity.
How can you build a modern new nation on that kind of identity, without transporting away about 10 million people ?
I think there might be quite a few racist nationalists north of the border too, if that isn't too much of a shock to you.
I agree there are, hidden away.
But England has more of a problem with this currently, because the Scottish Nationalists have been deliberately defining themselves against them. I don't think Scottish Independence would lead to a progressive outcome in the long-term, though, just unnecessary walls, barriers and borders between many people who are already closely related. The SNP tends to sell a strangely forgetful notion of "cuddly" left-wing nationalism without border posts and exclusionary activities, which can't work.
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including me
I did qualify it by suggesting: "other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares"
The King receives the Scottish crown from the Duke of Hamilton, having first been presented earlier with the Elizabeth sword
No more spoilers please, some of us are going to watch the highlights later.
Lol. We will all be watching it on catch up. HY will have it on replay at least three or four times. It will be part of his regular viewing box set that includes HMQ's funeral.
Has he been getting aerated about the traitors, recte peaceful demonstrators? Asking for a friend.
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including me
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including me
I did qualify it by suggesting: "other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares"
The streets of that part of Edinburgh are usually pretty busy in the tourist season ... someone's picked their dates well, to look good on TV, without falling foul of the Fringe and its comedians.
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?
The Party of hangin' and floggin' rides again.
What was Brexit for if we can't hang and flog people we don't like?
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including 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.
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.
But probably also the ones who were against vastly increasing the population post 2000. Sorry but that is one of the root causes of the inflationary housing cost, along with near zero interest rates and the relaxation of mortgage rules.
Actions have unexpected consequences. If the population had not increased by 20% since 2000 housing costs would be lower. If interest rates hadn't been artificially held low by the inflation target having housing costs stripped out people wouldn't have borrowed so much. None of these things were done by older homeowners who as you noted voted tory who wasn't the party that brought them in.
If the population had not increased by 20% then there would be far fewer workers available to the construction sector, and a far greater share of benefits recipients among the population. So things are a bit more complex than, expel the foreigners but keep them working here.
I have never said expel the foreigners, my point of view is you can high immigration and build houses and services to match or you can have low immigration.
The point remains what you can't do is cheer on high immigration and say not me gov when complaining about poor services and high housing costs when no party is willing to build the houses or increase the services and guess what none of them will
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including 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.”
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.
There’s a map on Twitter showing what a map of Liverpool would look like if it had trams and metro like a similarly sized and important French city. Amazing. It’s absurd - obscene, even - that we don’t manage to do this
This should be top of Starmer’s To Do list. Improve transport in our second level cities
We actually have an advantage over our European peers in this respect. We are geographically smaller and more densely populated than France, Germany etc
That makes justifications for high speed rail harder (we don’t need them) and justifications for proper normal rail/tram/metro networks easier. Ideally linking all the great northern cities. HS2 has been a colossal wrong turning and misplaced endeavour. By now we could have had a genuine northern powerhouse urban public transport network
I saw that too. I partially agree - we should've borrowed and invested in both when interest rates were 0%.
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including me
Interesting developments overnight, each seemingly as a consequence of the war against cars meeting political reality.
No 1
Cambridge City Council elects a Conservative for the first time since 2012! The Conservative's fought this by-election on a platform of scrapping the city's proposed congestion charge - Labour, LDs & Greens all said they would reform, not scrap it.
King's Hedges (Cambridge) Council By-Election Result:
Khan’s team were in the High Court yesterday, he’s being sued by five councils affected by the ULEZ expansion, who claim the consultation was inadequate and incomprehensible, with no enabling legislation passed, but as the equivalent of a order-in-council based on the original legislation for a much smaller zone.
Tories in London really need to get everyone running on this as a single issue campaign. Who’s their Londoner version of Andy Street?
There’s also a civil liberties group trying to sue the mayor, on the basis of the increased surveillance and ANPR cameras resulting from the scheme.
What do we want? MORE POLLUTION! When do we want it? NOW! What do we want? OUR KIDS WITH ASTHMA! When do we want it! NOW!
Some morons are upset about having to upgrade their ancient car. More people are upset by the reality that you can taste the particulates spewed out of exhaust pipes and it is having a truly detrimental effect on people's health.
A legacy of the way Brexit was handled is that we are now conditioned to preferring a policy that has 50% support and meets 100% of our objectives, over one which has 65% support and meets 90% of our objectives.
I support the scheme but comments such as yours make it hard to do so. Morons = ordinary working people really struggling who have been continually shafted by the Tories.
No no - the morons are people like Ferrari. They can afford to change the car but are refusing to do so for civil liberty reasons. Whilst claiming to support the little people at the bottom they claim this would impact. Whilst supporting a party and government who smashes the same people far harder on every other cost of living crisis measure.
At the banger end of the market there is a healthy trade going on - selling ULEZ compliant cars into London, clearing non-compliant cars out of London. So I don't buy the claim that this impacts the lowest paid - and I certainly don't buy the supposition that Tories care about these people. Because its patently clear they don't. This is just crayon politics for morons.
The problem isn't people running 20 year old petrol cars - the problem is those running relatively recent (5 -12 year old) diesels.
Leaving aside affordability for a moment, it's not fair or reasonable for you to have been able to buy a car with a likely lifespan of 15 years which meets all the current requirements, and 5 or 6 years later be told you can't drive it in London because it's too dirty. If the ULEZ required diesels to be Euro 5 up (essentially anything under 14 years old) that would be much more reasonable.
Government simply should not push policy changes through this fast - going from promoting diesel cars as green to banning those same cars well within the lifespan of those cars is a grossly unfair abuse of power.
Bang on apart from one other element that you mention. I don't think we can "leave aside affordability."
No doubt @RochdalePioneers with his motor car blog and man of the people schtick thinks he can. Because - let me guess - affordability is no issue for him whatsoever, it's just a question of what second car he should have, practical or fun runaround.
But if you go to those ULEZ-affected areas you see a lot of older non-compliant cars, very often with usually a woman shepherding her several children in and out of it.
Do we? As has already been raised, the ULEZ limit is set so that vast number of vehicles 20 years old are compliant. If an R50 Mini is compliant - most will be.
We are talking about vehicles which are a daily driver. The older they get the more it costs to run daily. There will be very few cars non-compliant in daily use by bottom decile people as is being purported. The running cost of keeping such vehicles in daily use already being higher than trading for something newer / less costly to maintain. Which is why even bottom decile people tend to have cars newer than 20 years old.
It's the same as payday lenders. Of course it is heinously expensive. To you and me who would structure our finances differently. But for those who can afford it least of all, to borrow £10 and repay £12 the following Friday is "cheaper" than taking out a term loan of £2,000 at some value of i together with the attendant credit checks.
Running an old banger may be more expensive but buying a ULEZ-compliant car is an outgoing many simply can't afford, either buying outright or, and especially now of course, on the never-never.
My newold 14 year old Hyundai is an old banger. ULEZ compliant, £2k to buy. The older cars get the more they cost to keep running, especially if used daily.
This is why almost everyone trades cars in whilst they still have value. I can drive around any poor part of any given city and start sticking number plates into the ULEZ checker and almost all will be compliant.
Where people keep cars for decades, they are rarely running them daily. They are enthusiast cars. And it seems to be those people making the most noise, claiming they are protecting the poor whereas they are protecting themselves.
Where are people going to get £2,000 from?
They'll need that kind of money to keep their old banger on the road anyway. Cars cost money to keep running, especially if they're old. They'll get the scrap or resale value of their previous car, too, which will help. I belive that We Buy Any Car buy, er, any car. And there is a scrappage scheme, too.
There is however a huge difference in spending 2k a bit here and a bit there throughout the year and finding it in one chunk. Also I call bollocks on it will cost 2k to keep running. When I had cars they were always were old bangers and I never spent anywhere near 2k...was more like 200
I'm surprised a 14 year old Hyundai is ULEZ compliant. My understanding was that petrol cars before 2014 and diesel cars before 2016 weren't (can't remember the exact dates, but it was around then). Certainly my 2009 petrol car wasn't compliant when I last checked. But I've just checked, and apparently now my 2009 petrol car IS compliant. So what isn't?
On running costs: the biggest running cost tends to be depreciation. Which is something you barely pay at all on old bangers. And 20 years ago, you might have had to be paying out regularly to fix things which go wrong on your old car. But cars made 20 years ago were made considerably better than those made 40 years ago. The only maintenance I need to pay for my 2009 petrol car is replacing parts - tyres, brake pads etc. Other than that it's been remarkably reliable.
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
The number of deportations by British authorities has collapsed since the Conservatives came to power. Has any Conservative Home Secretary lost their job over this?
A different take on 4th July yesterday! @OliverJSY 'Today we remember the 15,000+ American loyalists, British soldiers, German Auxiliaries and Native Americans who lost their lives in defence of the Crown between 1775 and 1783' https://twitter.com/OliverJSY/status/1676267089772912642?s=20
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
The King receives the Scottish crown from the Duke of Hamilton, having first been presented earlier with the Elizabeth sword
No more spoilers please, some of us are going to watch the highlights later.
That sword would make a purveyor of GoT related tat blush. Just needs the fragrant Penny in her Star Trek outfit grasping it for the full cringe with cheese.
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director on the King and Queen
I do have a bit of sympathy for old jug ears. It must be pretty tedious doing this sort of thing. The worst of it must be knowing that other than the partially lobotomised, nobody cares.
The streets were packed in Edinburgh today and most of them were monarchists, plenty care including me
Yebbut, if we cared we'd be watching it on TV.
I am
Funnily enough I actually agree with HYUFD, that it's actually importantly good to see the King and Queen blessed by so many different faiths.
The King receives the Scottish crown from the Duke of Hamilton, having first been presented earlier with the Elizabeth sword
No more spoilers please, some of us are going to watch the highlights later.
That sword would make a purveyor of GoT related tat blush. Just needs the fragrant Penny in her Star Trek outfit grasping it for the full cringe with cheese.
An Episcopal and Roman Catholic bishop certainly in attendance
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.
The measure goes well beyond a state created incentive for people to get rid of older polluting cars; some will have no choice but to do so, hence the scrappage scheme. The scheme, though, will not be sufficient to cover the value of some of the targeted cars and, in any case, it is only open to those on particular state benefits.
My brother in law was recently made redundant from a specialist architects in Birmingham. He has - eventually - managed to get re-employed near Woolwich (he moved down yesterday after having a very difficult time finding a one-bedroom no ensuite houseshare within his limited budget). He has a pay rise (cus it's London I guess) but living expenses up significantly. He then finds out about ULEZ. Poor bugger has a oldish (10years?) diesel BMW which won't fit the new rules and is now going to have to sell his car (which he loves) and buy another.
Is this fair? Dunno but I can't help feeling sorry for the chap.
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
I didn't say that most people were English Nationalists, though. But, if you want to mention Sunak, I would say that people like David Starkey have questioned Sunak's Englishness, as have other less reputable people - it is clear that their English nationalism is very much defined by race.
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
People that think that Scottish Nationalism is benign are naive. I know that it is anecdotal, but with the exception of one or two posters, the nationalist posters on here are clearly racist Anglophobes and find it difficult to cover their other prejudices too. One of the most prolific posters was banned. Scottish nationalism is mainly based on a core vote that genuinely hate the English, even though "the English" are a pretty diverse bunch (which is conveniently overlooked). It would be fascinating to get a group of them to take a polygraph test to see their real motivations.
Nationalism generally is a dated philosophy that is bases itself on insulating oneself from the "others". Scottish nationalists are no better. They thrive off fake grievances, fake history and claims of being colonised when in fact they were enthusiastic colonisers. They hoodwink the gullible into thinking it is a fluffy type of nationalism when it is nothing of the sort.
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
I didn't say that most people were English Nationalists, though. But, if you want to mention Sunak, I would say that people like David Starkey have questioned Sunak's Englishness, as have other less reputable people - it is clear that their English nationalism is very much defined by race.
Compared to the 46% who voted for Trump in the US, the Italians who elected Meloni PM, the 41% of French who voted for Le Pen, the Indians who voted for Modi, the Brazilians for Bolsonaro, the Israelis for Netanyahu, the Germans who vote AfD and the Russians who voted for Putin and Spanish for Vox or even the Scots who vote SNP or Irish SF, English nationalism is just a damp squib
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
I didn't say that most people were English Nationalists, though. But, if you want to mention Sunak, I would say that people like David Starkey have questioned Sunak's Englishness, as have other less reputable people - it is clear that their English nationalism is very much defined by race.
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.
The measure goes well beyond a state created incentive for people to get rid of older polluting cars; some will have no choice but to do so, hence the scrappage scheme. The scheme, though, will not be sufficient to cover the value of some of the targeted cars and, in any case, it is only open to those on particular state benefits.
My brother in law was recently made redundant from a specialist architects in Birmingham. He has - eventually - managed to get re-employed near Woolwich (he moved down yesterday after having a very difficult time finding a one-bedroom no ensuite houseshare within his limited budget). He has a pay rise (cus it's London I guess) but living expenses up significantly. He then finds out about ULEZ. Poor bugger has a oldish (10years?) diesel BMW which won't fit the new rules and is now going to have to sell his car (which he loves) and buy another.
Is this fair? Dunno but I can't help feeling sorry for the chap.
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
On the upside, should be quite easy to find a brightly dyed red haired woman in blue shorts and black crop top, who is also six foot three
Ciswomen?
Presumably the reported height of this woman is based on an eye witness, so it could be out by a fair amount. And, of course, there are some tall women. But, no, these possible explanations are boring when you can jump straight to blaming the trans!
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
On the upside, should be quite easy to find a brightly dyed red haired woman in blue shorts and black crop top, who is also six foot three
Ciswomen?
Presumably the reported height of this woman is based on an eye witness, so it could be out by a fair amount. And, of course, there are some tall women. But, no, these possible explanations are boring when you can jump straight to blaming the trans!
Who’s blaming the trans?? We are levelling our accusing gaze at Sussex police for failing to track down the most conspicuously obvious, physically unusual criminal suspects in southern 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.
But probably also the ones who were against vastly increasing the population post 2000. Sorry but that is one of the root causes of the inflationary housing cost, along with near zero interest rates and the relaxation of mortgage rules.
Actions have unexpected consequences. If the population had not increased by 20% since 2000 housing costs would be lower. If interest rates hadn't been artificially held low by the inflation target having housing costs stripped out people wouldn't have borrowed so much. None of these things were done by older homeowners who as you noted voted tory who wasn't the party that brought them in.
If the population had not increased by 20% then there would be far fewer workers available to the construction sector, and a far greater share of benefits recipients among the population. So things are a bit more complex than, expel the foreigners but keep them working here.
I have never said expel the foreigners, my point of view is you can high immigration and build houses and services to match or you can have low immigration.
The point remains what you can't do is cheer on high immigration and say not me gov when complaining about poor services and high housing costs when no party is willing to build the houses or increase the services and guess what none of them will
I literally advocate for increasing spending on servicing and changing the mode of house ownership and renting, and would accept housebuilding if / when that doesn't solve the issue as long as those properties aren't built for private profit. You can argue that these policies won't have my intended outcome, but it is the position you say I should take if I am pro immigrant, and you're still saying it's my fault everything is terrible rather than the people who have been in government for the last decade and their policies.
The Conservatives chose to impose austerity and claimed they would cut immigration, I didn't vote for them. When the Labour party suggested they would impose austerity and cut immigration, I didn't vote for them.
I have voted for Greens, who are pro immigration and anti austerity and pro public services, as well as land reform.
I have also voted LD, but that was first in my youth with my first ever vote, and in the last general election where they were the only option for kicking out a vile Tory MP.
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director and Humanist society representative on the King and Queen.
A different take on 4th July yesterday! @OliverJSY 'Today we remember the 15,000+ American loyalists, British soldiers, German Auxiliaries and Native Americans who lost their lives in defence of the Crown between 1775 and 1783' https://twitter.com/OliverJSY/status/1676267089772912642?s=20
What about the slaves who fought for the Empire and were subsequently freed in Canada or the West Indies?
We should declare 24th August a holiday - that's the date in 1814 when we burned Washington DC's public buildings (though not its private ones) in retaliation for America's pillage and destruction of Toronto and Port Dover in Canada, in another war which they started.
I'm currently listening to the Slate podcast* on the Watergate scandal (Slow Burn) and it is absolutely outstanding. I highly recommend it, and I can absolutely guarantee that - however much you think you know about it - you will learn a lot.
* I have a swimming MP3 player. It makes long swims an almost transcendental experience.
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.
the Brazilians for Bolsonaro, the Israelis for Netanyahu, the Germans who vote AfD and the Russians who voted for Putin and Spanish for Vox or even the Scots who vote SNP or Irish SF, English nationalism is just a damp squib
I've told you BEFORE, dick-wad:
Only 37% of Indians voted for Modi (in a country that is 80% Hindu).
Hmm the Just Stop Oil protest at Wimbledon seems a bit half hearted compared to the snooker/cricket/horse racing/art galleries/traffic. Must have got told to make sure there wasn't too much disruption by their parents as they quite enjoy watching the tennis.
I fear they are saving thie energies for disrupting the F1 this weekend.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
the Brazilians for Bolsonaro, the Israelis for Netanyahu, the Germans who vote AfD and the Russians who voted for Putin and Spanish for Vox or even the Scots who vote SNP or Irish SF, English nationalism is just a damp squib
I've told you BEFORE, dick-wad:
Only 37% of Indians voted for Modi (in a country that is 80% Hindu).
Well yes, but only 37% also voted for Brexit, or in fact less because of who chose to vote.
The Brexiters are still a reasonable sized constituency. Also that language isn't too called-for.
I'm currently listening to the Slate podcast* on the Watergate scandal (Slow Burn) and it is absolutely outstanding. I highly recommend it, and I can absolutely guarantee that - however much you think you know about it - you will learn a lot.
* I have a swimming MP3 player. It makes long swims an almost transcendental experience.
Do you always listen to podcasts about activity-appropriate scandals? Watergate while swimming. Queuegate while queueing. Beergate down the pub. Brothelgate while... There's a big list so probably one for every activity
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.
There’s a map on Twitter showing what a map of Liverpool would look like if it had trams and metro like a similarly sized and important French city. Amazing. It’s absurd - obscene, even - that we don’t manage to do this
This should be top of Starmer’s To Do list. Improve transport in our second level cities
We actually have an advantage over our European peers in this respect. We are geographically smaller and more densely populated than France, Germany etc
That makes justifications for high speed rail harder (we don’t need them) and justifications for proper normal rail/tram/metro networks easier. Ideally linking all the great northern cities. HS2 has been a colossal wrong turning and misplaced endeavour. By now we could have had a genuine northern powerhouse urban public transport network
Apparently, it cost £50 million to build 700 METRES of tramway extension to Wolverhampton station (still not open if my chums on Rail UK are to be believed).
Blessing now from the Chief Imam, Honorary Hindu Priest and a Rabbi and Buddhist Temple director and Humanist society representative on the King and Queen.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
And yet this integration mainly happens in urban areas, like London or Manchester, which also have large ancestral English populations, and yet rural English nationalists also then insist on seeing both this process itself, and these places as then , qualitatively, "not English", which is very strange.
This integration has tended to be processed officially through a narrative of Britain. not England..
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
On the upside, should be quite easy to find a brightly dyed red haired woman in blue shorts and black crop top, who is also six foot three
Ciswomen?
Presumably the reported height of this woman is based on an eye witness, so it could be out by a fair amount. And, of course, there are some tall women. But, no, these possible explanations are boring when you can jump straight to blaming the trans!
Who’s blaming the trans?? We are levelling our accusing gaze at Sussex police for failing to track down the most conspicuously obvious, physically unusual criminal suspects in southern England
Hmm the Just Stop Oil protest at Wimbledon seems a bit half hearted compared to the snooker/cricket/horse racing/art galleries/traffic. Must have got told to make sure there wasn't too much disruption by their parents as they quite enjoy watching the tennis.
Just Stop Oil is like doing a jigsaw* - a pointless way to pass the time until you die.
(* a jigsaw puzzle and some confetti were thrown on Court 18)
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
And yet this integration mainly happens in urban areas, like London, which also have large ancestral English populations, and yet rural English nationalists then insist on seeing both this process and these places as then entirely "not English".
This integration has tended to be processed officially through a narrative of Britain. not England..
Which is the old game of defining X by taking the subset of X that I define as the True X.
Essentially, you defining English nationalism as the bits of England you really don’t like.
The CiRA are the real representatives of Irish Nationalism - discuss.
This will play really well for the Conservatives come the next election. Oh wait, they are in Government overseeing record immigration.
The other thing of course is the question doesn't differentiate between the boats and a requirement for vacancies to be filled. The whole narrative has been whipped up by the current Government and their shills. I am scratching my head as to how this works in their favour bearing in mind they are the incumbents.
I'm currently listening to the Slate podcast* on the Watergate scandal (Slow Burn) and it is absolutely outstanding. I highly recommend it, and I can absolutely guarantee that - however much you think you know about it - you will learn a lot.
* I have a swimming MP3 player. It makes long swims an almost transcendental experience.
What's the swimming MP3?
I love swimming but find it, simultaneously, very boring. This would be a gamechanger
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
And yet this integration mainly happens in urban areas, like London, which also have large ancestral English populations, and yet rural English nationalists then insist on seeing both this process and these places as then entirely "not English".
This integration has tended to be processed officially through a narrative of Britain. not England..
Which is the old game of defining X by taking the subset of X that I define as the True X.
Essentially, you defining English nationalism as the bits of England you really don’t like.
The CiRA are the real representatives of Irish Nationalism - discuss.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
And yet this integration mainly happens in urban areas, like London, which also have large ancestral English populations, and yet rural English nationalists then insist on seeing both this process and these places as then entirely "not English".
This integration has tended to be processed officially through a narrative of Britain. not England..
Which is the old game of defining X by taking the subset of X that I define as the True X.
Essentially, you defining English nationalism as the bits of England you really don’t like.
The CiRA are the real representatives of Irish Nationalism - discuss.
No, I wouldn't agree there. "London isn't an English city" is the majority of modern, rightwing English nationalists defining the parts of England they don't like, not me.
England to me is rural 18th century religious conformists and pre-Norman "Merrie Englande", and tolerance in modern London. The majority of people who call themselves modern english nationalists often have a much more one-dimensional view.
When I go on walks, runs, cycles, h*rs*b*ck r*d*ng, etc I am often tempted to listen to podcasts (The Anti-Trans Hate Machine on the one hand; and Gender: A Wider Lens on the other, for example).
However, I invariably don't. In London because I once, rightly, got a bollocking from a black cab driver about wearing headphones and cycling; and otherwise because I like to take in my surroundings. That said, if I had to use a public pool doing length after length, than which I can think of nothing more boring, I might be tempted to listen to something.
When I go on walks, runs, cycles, h*rs*b*ck r*d*ng, etc I am often tempted to listen to podcasts (The Anti-Trans Hate Machine on the one hand; and Gender: A Wider Lens on the other, for example).
However, I invariably don't. In London because I once, rightly, got a bollocking from a black cab driver about wearing headphones and cycling; and otherwise because I like to take in my surroundings. That said, if I had to use a public pool doing length after length, than which I can think of nothing more boring, I might be tempted to listen to something.
Swimming is great physical and mental exercise. I love it. However I also hate it, as it is so numbingly dull. I've ALWAYS wanted to find a genuine waterproof MP3 player. I wonder if @rcs1000 is talking about something like this:
You made an excellent point about how plants are - effectively - little solar power stations, converting the sun's radiation into biomass.
And it's true! They are.
The efficiency of photosynthesis ranges, depending on the vegetation, from 0.1% to about 2%. Modern factory farmed crops that have been engineered for efficiency are closer to 2%. Nature's own inventions tend to be at the bottom end of the range.
By contrast, the latest solar panels achieve efficiencies are close to 20%, with some super efficient models managing as high as 23-24%.
With a lot of vegetation, though, as it decomposes it gives off that solar energy as heat and releases the CO2 it captured during the growth process. So, unless you can bury the organic material, put it under enormous pressure and starve of it of oxygen*, then you end up releasing all that energy back into the atmosphere and undoing all the good work of photosynthesis.
When I go on walks, runs, cycles, h*rs*b*ck r*d*ng, etc I am often tempted to listen to podcasts (The Anti-Trans Hate Machine on the one hand; and Gender: A Wider Lens on the other, for example).
However, I invariably don't. In London because I once, rightly, got a bollocking from a black cab driver about wearing headphones and cycling; and otherwise because I like to take in my surroundings. That said, if I had to use a public pool doing length after length, than which I can think of nothing more boring, I might be tempted to listen to something.
You need a single-ear sports earpiece. They attach to one ear and you can Cycle just fine because you can hear the road noise. A good one costs about a tenner and they make cycling and running so much less tedious.
Oh, well, I'm glad that the genius Elon Musk took over Twitter to make it such a better platform...
How are the Musk defenders doing atm, anyway? Still want to claim tech daddy is a business genius / knows his arse from his elbow?
The fixation that some progressives have with starting a culture war over Elon Musk is quite bizarre.
I have no desire to start a culture war over Elon Musk - he is just such a great example of the great lie that capitalism is a meritocratic system that rewards hard work, ingenuity and good ideas and also a great example of how it actually replicates intergenerational wealth and allows rich people to have a significant influence on the lives of millions of people across the planet. He bought twitter, a platform that has been used by countless independent journalists, activists and just average people to organise, investigate and talk to each other and he has, time and time again, made it a worse and worse experience to use. He has proven that his wealth and his ability to leverage it is a social negative.
When I go on walks, runs, cycles, h*rs*b*ck r*d*ng, etc I am often tempted to listen to podcasts (The Anti-Trans Hate Machine on the one hand; and Gender: A Wider Lens on the other, for example).
However, I invariably don't. In London because I once, rightly, got a bollocking from a black cab driver about wearing headphones and cycling; and otherwise because I like to take in my surroundings. That said, if I had to use a public pool doing length after length, than which I can think of nothing more boring, I might be tempted to listen to something.
Swimming is great physical and mental exercise. I love it. However I also hate it, as it is so numbingly dull. I've ALWAYS wanted to find a genuine waterproof MP3 player. I wonder if @rcs1000 is talking about something like this:
The interesting thing about swimming is either you can or you can't. Throughout the years I have prided myself on being, ahem, quite - let's say very fit. All kinds of exercise/activities without breaking too much of a sweat or at least seeing it through while still in control.
But one length of swimming front crawl breathing every three or even two arm raises, or whatever they're called, and I'm fucked. I'm the idiot standing or treading water at the end of the pool after each and every length clawing for air while these 5'2" 15 stone folk happily swim length after length after length like sleek amphibians.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
Who hates the English? Even Renton only thought they were wankers.
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.
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.
I am not an advocate of any type of nationalism , but how is that any different to, say, Scottish nationalism?
I can answer that!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
What a load of rubbish, the UK even has an English Asian Tory PM now
What is interesting is the savage hatred of “English” people, often evinced in “intellectual” thinking, despite the actual evidence.
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
And yet this integration mainly happens in urban areas, like London, which also have large ancestral English populations, and yet rural English nationalists then insist on seeing both this process and these places as then entirely "not English".
This integration has tended to be processed officially through a narrative of Britain. not England..
Which is the old game of defining X by taking the subset of X that I define as the True X.
Essentially, you defining English nationalism as the bits of England you really don’t like.
The CiRA are the real representatives of Irish Nationalism - discuss.
No, I wouldn't agree there. "London isn't an English city" is the majority of modern, rightwing English nationalists defining the parts of England they don't like, not me.
England to me is rural 18th century religious conformists and pre-Norman "Merrie Englande", and tolerance in modern London. The majority of people who call themselves modern english nationalists often have a much more one-dimensional view.
Where do you get you list of “ majority of people who call themselves modern english nationalists” ?
Because the claimed views don’t seem to match polling, voting or any other definition of “majority”
You made an excellent point about how plants are - effectively - little solar power stations, converting the sun's radiation into biomass.
And it's true! They are.
The efficiency of photosynthesis ranges, depending on the vegetation, from 0.1% to about 2%. Modern factory farmed crops that have been engineered for efficiency are closer to 2%. Nature's own inventions tend to be at the bottom end of the range.
By contrast, the latest solar panels achieve efficiencies are close to 20%, with some super efficient models managing as high as 23-24%.
With a lot of vegetation, though, as it decomposes it gives off that solar energy as heat and releases the CO2 it captured during the growth process. So, unless you can bury the organic material, put it under enormous pressure and starve of it of oxygen*, then you end up releasing all that energy back into the atmosphere and undoing all the good work of photosynthesis.
* Trees also work.
Otherwise known as a peat bog - although you don't actually need enormous pressure.
We have two in the Flatlands in dire need of restoration.
BBC Twitter Sussex “Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair. She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said. The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
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...)
I am not giving up my SUV for any quinoa munching sandal wearer.
Comments
Actions have unexpected consequences. If the population had not increased by 20% since 2000 housing costs would be lower. If interest rates hadn't been artificially held low by the inflation target having housing costs stripped out people wouldn't have borrowed so much. None of these things were done by older homeowners who as you noted voted tory who wasn't the party that brought them in.
Then from the Roman Catholic Archbishop
His assertions are markedly at odds with the list of priority issues in the R&W poll chart posted in yesterday's header.
How can you build a modern new nation on that kind of identity, without transporting away about 10 million people ?
My brother in law was recently made redundant from a specialist architects in Birmingham. He has - eventually - managed to get re-employed near Woolwich (he moved down yesterday after having a very difficult time finding a one-bedroom no ensuite houseshare within his limited budget). He has a pay rise (cus it's London I guess) but living expenses up significantly. He then finds out about ULEZ. Poor bugger has a oldish (10years?) diesel BMW which won't fit the new rules and is now going to have to sell his car (which he loves) and buy another.
Is this fair? Dunno but I can't help feeling sorry for the chap.
This particular vision of modern English nationalism can only work with a level of ethnic resentment and exclusion as extreme France's, but probably more extreme, maybe like South Africa's in apartheid..
Must have got told to make sure there wasn't too much disruption by their parents as they quite enjoy watching the tennis.
This should be top of Starmer’s To Do list. Improve transport in our second level cities
We actually have an advantage over our European peers in this respect. We are geographically smaller and more densely populated than France, Germany etc
That makes justifications for high speed rail harder (we don’t need them) and justifications for proper normal rail/tram/metro networks easier. Ideally linking all the great northern cities. HS2 has been a colossal wrong turning and misplaced endeavour. By now we could have had a genuine northern powerhouse urban public transport network
ETA: And making Corbyn leader clearly shows the (Labour) left have a sense of humour. Mind, you, I suppose you could say the same about Truss and Conservative members!
Nationalism during the colonialist period was seen as a model that could be used by the colonised to assert their right to self determination - they could point to the idea of the nation state and organise based on that. Whilst it is dubious to call Scotland a colony of England, it is more reasonable to argue they are a nation state that doesn't really have self determination - and what they have based their political campaign on is that desire for self governance. The major Nationalist party, the SNP, has for a long time not based their view of Scottishness on race or being born in Scotland but rather shared ideals and politics. They do not say Scotland for the Scottish and therefore the non Scottish must leave.
English nationalism, however, is not based on a desire for increased self determination from a colonising force (as much as the EU has had that idea projected on them as a rationalisation) but typically based on a form of racial purity - that the "browning" of England is a bad thing, that increased immigration (even from people who were born in the British Empire and therefore were British and had every legal right to come back to the Mother Country) destroys something fundamental about Englishness, that the best of England lays in it's past (ie when it was an Empire that subjugated other races for it's material benefit) and not it's present or future. Even amongst the "intellectuals" of the movement it relies heavily on an uncritical view of English past and present, and refuses to accept any criticism, instead retreating to a form of English exceptionalism or whataboutery.
The claims of "London not being a real English city" clearly falls in the latter, not the former. If the criticism was "why does the City of London have it's own secret form of government, including a representative in the HoC, that doesn't actually represent the people of London but the interests of capital - we should make London a real English city by incorporating it fully into the British state and give the people who live in it a real democratic system" I would put that more in the former.
But England has more of a problem with this currently, because the Scottish Nationalists have been deliberately defining themselves against them. I don't think Scottish Independence would lead to a progressive outcome in the long-term, though, just unnecessary walls, barriers and borders between many people who are already closely related. The SNP tends to sell a strangely forgetful notion of "cuddly" left-wing nationalism without border posts and exclusionary activities, which can't work.
What was Brexit for if we can't hang and flog people we don't like?
The point remains what you can't do is cheer on high immigration and say not me gov when complaining about poor services and high housing costs when no party is willing to build the houses or increase the services and guess what none of them will
@OliverJSY
'Today we remember the 15,000+ American loyalists, British soldiers, German Auxiliaries and Native Americans who lost their lives in defence of the Crown between 1775 and 1783'
https://twitter.com/OliverJSY/status/1676267089772912642?s=20
BBC Twitter
Sussex
“Boy left unclothed after Burgess Hill sexual assault by two women”
Which gets even *weirder* when you read the deets
“Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair.
She was wearing blue shorts and black crop top with pink Air Jordan trainers, and had glasses, a police spokesman said.
The other was about 5ft 9in (1.75m) tall with long white blonde hair and spoke with a Merseyside accent.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66107716
The opposite of the "Ingerland" mentalty.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/girls-death-contributed-to-by-air-pollution-coroner-rules-in-landmark-case
Nationalism generally is a dated philosophy that is bases itself on insulating oneself from the "others". Scottish nationalists are no better. They thrive off fake grievances, fake history and claims of being colonised when in fact they were enthusiastic colonisers. They hoodwink the gullible into thinking it is a fluffy type of nationalism when it is nothing of the sort.
The Conservatives chose to impose austerity and claimed they would cut immigration, I didn't vote for them. When the Labour party suggested they would impose austerity and cut immigration, I didn't vote for them.
I have voted for Greens, who are pro immigration and anti austerity and pro public services, as well as land reform.
I have also voted LD, but that was first in my youth with my first ever vote, and in the last general election where they were the only option for kicking out a vile Tory MP.
That makes 2000 in the UK, total, probably about 10 in the area
And how many of them have brightly dyed red hair?
I suppose there is the REMOTE possibility that this paragon of femininity was wearing a wig. But why would she do that?
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1676568445020766209
We should declare 24th August a holiday - that's the date in 1814 when we burned Washington DC's public buildings (though not its private ones) in retaliation for America's pillage and destruction of Toronto and Port Dover in Canada, in another war which they started.
* I have a swimming MP3 player. It makes long swims an almost transcendental experience.
Only 37% of Indians voted for Modi (in a country that is 80% Hindu).
In measurable terms - low levels of ghettoisation, inter-marriage, low levels of racist attacks, minority group success etc.. England is one of leaders in Europe in the integration of non native people into their society.
When Rotherham was breaking, frantic messages were sent in various agencies, demanding plans for the army to be sent in, detention camps, powers of arbitrary arrest.
For use against the locals. Because a pogrom was about to break out.
Yet, the response of the locals was (nearly entirely) through legal and social channels. No one from, even the families of the victims, led the pitchfork wielding genocidal mob that was supposed to happen. In the face of an issue that was tailor made (practically) for racial tension and violence… crickets.
The Brexiters are still a reasonable sized constituency. Also that language isn't too called-for.
This integration has tended to be processed officially through a narrative of Britain. not England..
(* a jigsaw puzzle and some confetti were thrown on Court 18)
https://twitter.com/leftiestats/status/1676596544403898369?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ&fbclid=IwAR37N81E_QkDSm2d3MdqP3BUeYLI_2t-mNeoAoffnte3S6nmMoe_iT3vdL0
Essentially, you defining English nationalism as the bits of England you really don’t like.
The CiRA are the real representatives of Irish Nationalism - discuss.
The other thing of course is the question doesn't differentiate between the boats and a requirement for vacancies to be filled. The whole narrative has been whipped up by the current Government and their shills. I am scratching my head as to how this works in their favour bearing in mind they are the incumbents.
I love swimming but find it, simultaneously, very boring. This would be a gamechanger
England to me is rural 18th century religious conformists and pre-Norman "Merrie Englande", and tolerance in modern London. The majority of people who call themselves modern english nationalists often have a much more one-dimensional view.
So I can see this: https://twitter.com/leftiestats/status/1676596544403898369
But not this, at least not all: https://twitter.com/LeftieStats
The new attempted replacement for Twitter, Meta's Threads, will NOT be launched in the EU, only the US and UK, due to wariness of EU data laws
https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1676583042041671685?s=20
The whole story is decidedly strange, in multiple ways
How are the Musk defenders doing atm, anyway? Still want to claim tech daddy is a business genius / knows his arse from his elbow?
However, I invariably don't. In London because I once, rightly, got a bollocking from a black cab driver about wearing headphones and cycling; and otherwise because I like to take in my surroundings. That said, if I had to use a public pool doing length after length, than which I can think of nothing more boring, I might be tempted to listen to something.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Swim-Mp3-Players/b?ie=UTF8&node=3589868031
Suddenly you've got music, podcasts, audible books. Superb
Favouring?
Now, if it turned out that we were excluded from this joy due to not being a big enough market compared to the EU then I might remoan no longer
You made an excellent point about how plants are - effectively - little solar power stations, converting the sun's radiation into biomass.
And it's true! They are.
The efficiency of photosynthesis ranges, depending on the vegetation, from 0.1% to about 2%. Modern factory farmed crops that have been engineered for efficiency are closer to 2%. Nature's own inventions tend to be at the bottom end of the range.
By contrast, the latest solar panels achieve efficiencies are close to 20%, with some super efficient models managing as high as 23-24%.
With a lot of vegetation, though, as it decomposes it gives off that solar energy as heat and releases the CO2 it captured during the growth process. So, unless you can bury the organic material, put it under enormous pressure and starve of it of oxygen*, then you end up releasing all that energy back into the atmosphere and undoing all the good work of photosynthesis.
* Trees also work.
There’s been a massive spike in the Electric Cars Destroy Our Roads etc on the progressive left, for example.
Peak comedy is the new SLS advocates - complete with Senator Shelby’s talking points.
But one length of swimming front crawl breathing every three or even two arm raises, or whatever they're called, and I'm fucked. I'm the idiot standing or treading water at the end of the pool after each and every length clawing for air while these 5'2" 15 stone folk happily swim length after length after length like sleek amphibians.
Because the claimed views don’t seem to match polling, voting or any other definition of “majority”
We have two in the Flatlands in dire need of restoration.
NEVER BUY PEAT BASED COMPOST!
(Sorry for shouting)