What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
One think we should do, is move the EV subsidies to cheaper cars.
The £50k+ EV market is up and running. Expanding rapidly. They were the subject of subsidies and encouragement when that is all there was.
What we need is sub £30k EVs - move the subsidies there.
In the US, targeting lower sale prices has encouraged the manufacturers to aim for lower and lower prices.
Yes, you can get new ICE family cars for less than £20k but the cheapest new electric family vehicles are around £30k+
There is no need to subsidise new Teslas, that market is up and running. Investing in charging infrastructure for those who can't charge at home, and encouraging affordability will smooth the transition next.
Incidentally I don't know if its just anecdote but I have recently seen more and more cars being advertised at 0% APR offers. Advert on the radio yesterday for Mazda, local Ford retailer has a giant "speak to us about 0% APR" poster outside etc too.
Considering how interest rates have been going up not down, I'm curious what is behind this? Not looked into it, but wonder if the heat that was seen during COVID is going out of the sales market now so they're appealing more to this now?
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
For some reason I am reminded of the following story.
Instituto Cervantes (Spanish cultural centre in London) sold up their incredibly valuable building near Sloane Square. Moved to Central London.
The building was bought by a Russian oligarch. Who was planning on converting it back to a house. Would be very nice.
Got squatted. The usual types etc. They declared that they would never move, legal stuff etc.
Then, they left overnight. So the story goes, someone explained to them the reputation of said oligarch.
Pro-Putin mafia boss threatens to murder British anti-homelessness activists. What a hero.
Put his picture up over the mantelpiece in every Tory social club now.
Who do I vote for if I'm against London welcoming leading figures in international organised crime? Are there any political parties with the guts not to lick mafia boots?
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
No. Melbourne & Sydney are too far away from the rest of the world. If you go there you REALLY feel the isolation. Jo’burg is similarly isolated - and a crime-infested toilet. I presume you added it as a joke?
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Rich people do live outside London you know. Though I admit in the NW they do tend to live a bit outside Manchester. You can smell the money when you drive through Tatton and the other nice bits of Cheshire.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
One think we should do, is move the EV subsidies to cheaper cars.
The £50k+ EV market is up and running. Expanding rapidly. They were the subject of subsidies and encouragement when that is all there was.
What we need is sub £30k EVs - move the subsidies there.
In the US, targeting lower sale prices has encouraged the manufacturers to aim for lower and lower prices.
Yes, you can get new ICE family cars for less than £20k but the cheapest new electric family vehicles are around £30k+
There is no need to subsidise new Teslas, that market is up and running. Investing in charging infrastructure for those who can't charge at home, and encouraging affordability will smooth the transition next.
Incidentally I don't know if its just anecdote but I have recently seen more and more cars being advertised at 0% APR offers. Advert on the radio yesterday for Mazda, local Ford retailer has a giant "speak to us about 0% APR" poster outside etc too.
Considering how interest rates have been going up not down, I'm curious what is behind this? Not looked into it, but wonder if the heat that was seen during COVID is going out of the sales market now so they're appealing more to this now?
Car financing is on The List of Bad Things That Will Happen.
The main trick is to add to the price, and pitch a moderate sounding monthly spread over years.
Same as buying a mobile on a monthly contract. You are actually buying a phone on HP at a murderous interest rate, while locking yourself to a provider for a couple of years.
Refugees are about to be marched onto that very safe prison ship.
There are bound to be pictures of their humiliation, probably including one showing a few of them carrying iPhones or something so that Heil and Express and Torygraph readers can get a hard-on.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
A handful of upper middle class Remain voting areas of the Shires in the most prosperous parts of Oxfordshire, Surrey and Hertfordshire maybe. However remember even the South East Shires voted majority Leave in 2016, they aren't any more socially liberal and pro climate taxes than the national average and Tory voters there certainly aren't
It'd be hilarious if demographics geniuses managing the Tory campaign really did set a lot of stock by who's a "Remainer" and who's a "Leaver".
Why not go the whole hog and theorise in terms of supporters and opponents of Irish independence, or votes for women? There's probably a range of attitudes towards the Boers too. And which voters incline towards the Union and which towards the Confederacy.
If I had the chance, I'd vote for Britain to rejoin the EU and to join the eurozone too. I'd vote for whacking up inheritance tax towards the roof on all estates worth say more than £2m. I also think manmade climate change is a lie and if Nigel Farage ever gets a referendum on Net Zero, he can count on my support. Where do I fit in?
Labour/RefUK/RejoinEU swing voter most likely (probably the only one in the country).
The polls are also clear, the only demographics the Conservatives are still clearly ahead with are pensioners and Leave voters
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
A handful of upper middle class Remain voting areas of the Shires in the most prosperous parts of Oxfordshire, Surrey and Hertfordshire maybe. However remember even the South East Shires voted majority Leave in 2016, they aren't any more socially liberal and pro climate taxes than the national average and Tory voters there certainly aren't
It'd be hilarious if demographics geniuses managing the Tory campaign really did set a lot of stock by who's a "Remainer" and who's a "Leaver".
Why not go the whole hog and theorise in terms of supporters and opponents of Irish independence, or votes for women? There's probably a range of attitudes towards the Boers too. And which voters incline towards the Union and which towards the Confederacy.
If I had the chance, I'd vote for Britain to rejoin the EU and to join the eurozone too. I'd vote for whacking up inheritance tax towards the roof on all estates worth say more than £2m. I also think manmade climate change is a lie and if Nigel Farage ever gets a referendum on Net Zero, he can count on my support. Where do I fit in?
Labour/Green swing voter most likely!
Dunno whether you're serious, HY, but so long as a Tory candidate wasn't a racist or an utter hanger and flogger I'd vote Tory to keep the Greens out if I had to.
I disagree with a lot that you post, but I've always respected you for saying you'd vote Labour if necessary to keep the SNP out in Scotland.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
For some reason I am reminded of the following story.
Instituto Cervantes (Spanish cultural centre in London) sold up their incredibly valuable building near Sloane Square. Moved to Central London.
The building was bought by a Russian oligarch. Who was planning on converting it back to a house. Would be very nice.
Got squatted. The usual types etc. They declared that they would never move, legal stuff etc.
Then, they left overnight. So the story goes, someone explained to them the reputation of said oligarch.
Pro-Putin mafia boss threatens to murder British anti-homelessness activists. What a hero.
Put his picture up over the mantelpiece in every Tory social club now.
Who do I vote for if I'm against London welcoming leading figures in international organised crime? Are there any political parties with the guts not to lick mafia boots?
No idea if he said or did anything.
My point was that the Premier League owners are a group of fine, outstanding, lovely people.
Interrupting their revenue stream would only result in kind words, thoughtful actions and cute fluffy kittens.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish, used to have little sympathy for country dwellers. Most of them live there by choice.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
Parts of Merseyside and Manchester are much nicer than parts of London, that's why.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish, used to have little sympathy for country dwellers. Most of them live there by choice.
Haha. True.
The policy would have to be a bit cleverer. Subsiding retirees on Skye...nah.
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
One think we should do, is move the EV subsidies to cheaper cars.
The £50k+ EV market is up and running. Expanding rapidly. They were the subject of subsidies and encouragement when that is all there was.
What we need is sub £30k EVs - move the subsidies there.
In the US, targeting lower sale prices has encouraged the manufacturers to aim for lower and lower prices.
Yes, you can get new ICE family cars for less than £20k but the cheapest new electric family vehicles are around £30k+
There is no need to subsidise new Teslas, that market is up and running. Investing in charging infrastructure for those who can't charge at home, and encouraging affordability will smooth the transition next.
Incidentally I don't know if its just anecdote but I have recently seen more and more cars being advertised at 0% APR offers. Advert on the radio yesterday for Mazda, local Ford retailer has a giant "speak to us about 0% APR" poster outside etc too.
Considering how interest rates have been going up not down, I'm curious what is behind this? Not looked into it, but wonder if the heat that was seen during COVID is going out of the sales market now so they're appealing more to this now?
That’s the dealers cutting their margins close to zero, as no-one’s buying cars at the moment. For the past decade and a half, car dealers have primarily seen the car as the method of selling financial services, which is where they actually make money. If the headline is “0% finance”, then the actual finance cost is simply hidden in the list price of the car.
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
One think we should do, is move the EV subsidies to cheaper cars.
The £50k+ EV market is up and running. Expanding rapidly. They were the subject of subsidies and encouragement when that is all there was.
What we need is sub £30k EVs - move the subsidies there.
In the US, targeting lower sale prices has encouraged the manufacturers to aim for lower and lower prices.
Even so, the factories have to be built first. There's a lot of capacity coming on stream in the next couple of years. Mainly Europe, rather than here, but still.
Most EVs on the market are built by legacy car makers. They don't have factories which can build cheap / spacious EVs, so they churn out what they can build and use their brand image / marketing budget to try and upsell.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Some voluntarily go to Bristol, Brighton or Edinburgh of course, for lifestyle reasons. Others voluntarily go to Amsterdam or Geneva or Dublin for work. But world city wise if you want to be in Europe and an English speaking city then London is indeed the only real choice, in the same way Singapore is now the only choice in Asia after the CCP strangled Hong Kong.
This is part of the problem for levelling up though. London has many geo-economic advantages. RUK does not.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Except everyone who owns a big house in Birmingham or Manchester who could live in a flat in London instead. Which is probably quite a lot of people.
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
One think we should do, is move the EV subsidies to cheaper cars.
The £50k+ EV market is up and running. Expanding rapidly. They were the subject of subsidies and encouragement when that is all there was.
What we need is sub £30k EVs - move the subsidies there.
In the US, targeting lower sale prices has encouraged the manufacturers to aim for lower and lower prices.
Yes, you can get new ICE family cars for less than £20k but the cheapest new electric family vehicles are around £30k+
There is no need to subsidise new Teslas, that market is up and running. Investing in charging infrastructure for those who can't charge at home, and encouraging affordability will smooth the transition next.
Incidentally I don't know if its just anecdote but I have recently seen more and more cars being advertised at 0% APR offers. Advert on the radio yesterday for Mazda, local Ford retailer has a giant "speak to us about 0% APR" poster outside etc too.
Considering how interest rates have been going up not down, I'm curious what is behind this? Not looked into it, but wonder if the heat that was seen during COVID is going out of the sales market now so they're appealing more to this now?
Car financing is on The List of Bad Things That Will Happen.
The main trick is to add to the price, and pitch a moderate sounding monthly spread over years.
Dealers sell using the "Four Square" system. Fight fire with fire and lie your arse off. You are a cash buyer with no trade in and no finance until you get to their final price and they can't prove otherwise. When you've got the final, final price then just leave. Tell them you don't love them and you don't love their particular car so you're going to another dealer of the same brand to see what they will do.
When you've got them down to the final, final, final price and made the sales droid eat some of their commission then, and only then, bring up the subject of trade in and finance.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
Parts of Merseyside and Manchester are much nicer than parts of London, that's why.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
I’m honestly struggling to think of anyone with loads of money and a good job offer in London who would voluntarily move to Walsall or Solihull or the one vaguely nice bit of Manchester
You might do it for pressing family reasons - to be near a dying mother - but then your move would not be voluntary. And you’d probably finish your mum off by smothering her with a scatter cushion so you could move briskly back to London
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish, used to have little sympathy for country dwellers. Most of them live there by choice.
The ones that middle class incomers notice - other middle class incomers.
When I lived in Malmesbury, it was fascinating to see the separation between the two worlds. The incomers lived in the nice old houses. The people whose families had lived there for centuries lived in the housing estate over the hill. They even drank is separate pubs.
So you had a bucolic little town for the middle class. And a very different place for the actual locals.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
The split isn't that big actually. I would have thought it might have been bigger. The issue won't be whether it is happening but what do we do? Impoverishing ourselves whilst the world as a whole does little to deal with climate change doesn't make much sense.
I've not heard a good explanation of why we shouldn't explore for gas in the North Sea. Are there really people who would prefer us to be importing gas from new fields thousands of miles away that has to be liquified and then re-gassified on arrival. Or do they want us to abandon all fossil fuels with immediate effect.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
Parts of Merseyside and Manchester are much nicer than parts of London, that's why.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
I’m honestly struggling to think of anyone with loads of money and a good job offer in London who would voluntarily move to Walsall or Solihull or the one vaguely nice bit of Manchester
You might do it for pressing family reasons - to be near a dying mother - but then your move would not be voluntary. And you’d probably finish your mum off by smothering her with a scatter cushion so you could move briskly back to London
And I'm honestly struggling to think of anyone with load of money and a good job offer in Manchester or Liverpool, who would voluntarily move to Tower Hamlets or Hackney.
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
One think we should do, is move the EV subsidies to cheaper cars.
The £50k+ EV market is up and running. Expanding rapidly. They were the subject of subsidies and encouragement when that is all there was.
What we need is sub £30k EVs - move the subsidies there.
In the US, targeting lower sale prices has encouraged the manufacturers to aim for lower and lower prices.
Yes, you can get new ICE family cars for less than £20k but the cheapest new electric family vehicles are around £30k+
There is no need to subsidise new Teslas, that market is up and running. Investing in charging infrastructure for those who can't charge at home, and encouraging affordability will smooth the transition next.
Incidentally I don't know if its just anecdote but I have recently seen more and more cars being advertised at 0% APR offers. Advert on the radio yesterday for Mazda, local Ford retailer has a giant "speak to us about 0% APR" poster outside etc too.
Considering how interest rates have been going up not down, I'm curious what is behind this? Not looked into it, but wonder if the heat that was seen during COVID is going out of the sales market now so they're appealing more to this now?
Car financing is on The List of Bad Things That Will Happen.
The main trick is to add to the price, and pitch a moderate sounding monthly spread over years.
Dealers sell using the "Four Square" system. Fight fire with fire and lie your arse off. You are a cash buyer with no trade in and no finance until you get to their final price and they can't prove otherwise. When you've got the final, final price then just leave. Tell them you don't love them and you don't love their particular car so you're going to another dealer of the same brand to see what they will do.
When you've got them down to the final, final, final price and made the sales droid eat some of their commission then, and only then, bring up the subject of trade in and finance.
Just like the good old days of buying a TV on Tottenham Court Road (late 90s). The actual price was the one they shouted at you as you as you stepped into the street after a half hour of haggling.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
Parts of Merseyside and Manchester are much nicer than parts of London, that's why.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
I’m honestly struggling to think of anyone with loads of money and a good job offer in London who would voluntarily move to Walsall or Solihull or the one vaguely nice bit of Manchester
You might do it for pressing family reasons - to be near a dying mother - but then your move would not be voluntary. And you’d probably finish your mum off by smothering her with a scatter cushion so you could move briskly back to London
And I'm honestly struggling to think of anyone with load of money and a good job offer in Manchester or Liverpool, who would voluntarily move to Tower Hamlets or Hackney.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish, used to have little sympathy for country dwellers. Most of them live there by choice.
The ones that middle class incomers notice - other middle class incomers.
When I lived in Malmesbury, it was fascinating to see the separation between the two worlds. The incomers lived in the nice old houses. The people whose families had lived there for centuries lived in the housing estate over the hill. They even drank is separate pubs.
So you had a bucolic little town for the middle class. And a very different place for the actual locals.
Recently, I've spent two weekends in Much Wenlock helping friends who have moved there. It has a decent selection of pubs, but I got the sense that there was a little bit of what you describe going on there (I preferred the locals' pubs).
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
Parts of Merseyside and Manchester are much nicer than parts of London, that's why.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
I’m honestly struggling to think of anyone with loads of money and a good job offer in London who would voluntarily move to Walsall or Solihull or the one vaguely nice bit of Manchester
You might do it for pressing family reasons - to be near a dying mother - but then your move would not be voluntary. And you’d probably finish your mum off by smothering her with a scatter cushion so you could move briskly back to London
And I'm honestly struggling to think of anyone with load of money and a good job offer in Manchester or Liverpool, who would voluntarily move to Tower Hamlets or Hackney.
Then you're just showing lazy ignorance.
There are bits of both boroughs that are grim. But they also have massively gentrified Georgian squares where houses go for a million quid. The market doesn't lie.
Because having nice stuff on your doorstep (or a tube ride away) beats car parking that allows you to drive to nice stuff.
What I'd like to do is have more places like that, so that the price can come down.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Interesting (I agree entirely on Hong Kong, sadly)
Bangkok v KL sounds right. KL is cleaner, greener and a bit richer but it’s also quite boring and Islamic and discriminates against non Malays. Bangkok is more chaotic and polluted but also much more dynamic and fun, and slightly better located
I’d bet on Bangkok. It has the momentum (if the troubled politics allows)
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
Doesn't surprise me. Also the buses are [edit] now better and a little bigger, too, in recent years. So nicer and more efficient in road space. PLus the bus stops, at least the main ones, show buses coming in real time.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Plenty of towns around Edinburgh with the same bus company. The buses in my town are heavily used to get around the place to supermarket and back. Pretty fair coverage, actually.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
Needs to be close enough to the main regional markets and linked by regular flights: China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia. Doesn't need to be close to India, Japan or Korea as they are typically managed separately from "AsPac".
That said there are some that attempt to manage the region from Dubai. That doesn't really work well long term. Timezone issue + lack of local knowledge of Asian markets.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
But Edinburgh didn't have many bus users either till they reduced the number of lanes available for cars and allocated them to buses.
Honestly, it just sounds like you have rubbish public transport and active travel provision.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
Parts of Merseyside and Manchester are much nicer than parts of London, that's why.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
I’m honestly struggling to think of anyone with loads of money and a good job offer in London who would voluntarily move to Walsall or Solihull or the one vaguely nice bit of Manchester
You might do it for pressing family reasons - to be near a dying mother - but then your move would not be voluntary. And you’d probably finish your mum off by smothering her with a scatter cushion so you could move briskly back to London
And I'm honestly struggling to think of anyone with load of money and a good job offer in Manchester or Liverpool, who would voluntarily move to Tower Hamlets or Hackney.
Then you're just showing lazy ignorance.
There are bits of both boroughs that are grim. But they also have massively gentrified Georgian squares where houses go for a million quid. The market doesn't lie.
Because having nice stuff on your doorstep (or a tube ride away) beats car parking that allows you to drive to nice stuff.
What I'd like to do is have more places like that, so that the price can come down.
Whoosh!
Joke went over your head it seems. I was joking, replying in kind to what Leon had just written.
Of course some people want to live in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. Just as some people want to live in Liverpool and Manchester, which was the entire point. There are houses in Liverpool and Manchester that go for multi million pounds too.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
True but if you are very qualified and an English speaker and a high earner and have your pick of global cities it is likely to be between London, NYC, LA or San Francisco or Singapore as to where you go (maybe Paris if you speak French).
Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are all interesting significant British cities but they are not top tier world cities
Something that the statistics show is very clearly not the case.
Thousands of people from all over the world, qualified, English speakers and yes high earners too, can and do go to each of those cities.
No one who can afford to live in London voluntarily chooses Birmingham or Manchester. That’s laughable
Why would you do such an insane thing?
Plenty of people do.
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Name one. I’m talking about people with the money to live in London and/or the skills to get a good job in London. If you have those you live in London, because it’s a great world city. Why voluntarily choose an ugly mediocre Tier 4 city like Brum or Manc?
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
When I worked up in Yorkshire, there certainly were professional people who chose Leeds, Sheffield, and their environs, in preference to London, because their money simply went so much further.
Most Northern cities tend to have an incredibly posh district, with huge houses with gardens, built in Victorian times, which you would need far more than a typical professional salary to afford in London.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Plenty of towns around Edinburgh with the same bus company. The buses in my town are heavily used to get around the place to supermarket and back. Pretty fair coverage, actually.
Those Green Lothian buses have a very loose interpretation of 20mph haha
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
There are lots of reasons for Britain being London-centric but I do wonder if the English obsession with class/status plays a small part. Other cities just aren't top draw enough.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Alastair Meeks, formerly of this parish, used to have little sympathy for country dwellers. Most of them live there by choice.
The ones that middle class incomers notice - other middle class incomers.
When I lived in Malmesbury, it was fascinating to see the separation between the two worlds. The incomers lived in the nice old houses. The people whose families had lived there for centuries lived in the housing estate over the hill. They even drank is separate pubs.
So you had a bucolic little town for the middle class. And a very different place for the actual locals.
Recently, I've spent two weekends in Much Wenlock helping friends who have moved there. It has a decent selection of pubs, but I got the sense that there was a little bit of what you describe going on there (I preferred the locals' pubs).
I got questioned by some people (including my boss!) about drinking in a “locals” pub.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
Needs to be close enough to the main regional markets and linked by regular flights: China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia. Doesn't need to be close to India, Japan or Korea as they are typically managed separately from "AsPac".
That said there are some that attempt to manage the region from Dubai. That doesn't really work well long term. Timezone issue + lack of local knowledge of Asian markets.
The competition for Dubai is coming from the Saudis. They’re trying their best to insist on regional offices being based in the country, if they want to bid for the trillions of dollars of work coming up in the country. Of course, none of the execs (and definitely not their families) want to move from Dubai to Riyadh, so there’s all sorts of attempts at fudge being made.
Dubai has got some of the HK traffic driven out by the Chinese in the last couple of years, but as you say it’s a little too far away to truly manage the AsPac region.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
Needs to be close enough to the main regional markets and linked by regular flights: China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia. Doesn't need to be close to India, Japan or Korea as they are typically managed separately from "AsPac".
That said there are some that attempt to manage the region from Dubai. That doesn't really work well long term. Timezone issue + lack of local knowledge of Asian markets.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
They don't need it for economics and they rolled back a symbol of loathed colonial exploitation.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Scaring Taiwan was perhaps equally counterproductive. It's not going to go back now, and is economically important enough to be defended.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Holding power matters far more than keeping a territory successful, to the leaders of the CCP.
You could place these people in charge of Switzerland, and they'd turn it into a cesspit, so long as they profited personally.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
They rolled back a symbol of loathed colonial exploitation.
Doing your bit for CCP propaganda today I see. Allowing Hong Kongers to have freedom is only likely to encourage people on the mainland not least since they are poorer. Same with Taiwan. The Party is all about preservation.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
Needs to be close enough to the main regional markets and linked by regular flights: China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia. Doesn't need to be close to India, Japan or Korea as they are typically managed separately from "AsPac".
That said there are some that attempt to manage the region from Dubai. That doesn't really work well long term. Timezone issue + lack of local knowledge of Asian markets.
Saigon is a dark horse that might emerge in coming years. Dynamic, bustling, booming. Great food and good location. Liberal attitudes (unlike Hanoi). Doesn’t kowtow automatically to China. Don’t know if it might sink because climate change
Needs much better air links, less corruption and stable politics, but in 10-20 years it could be a contender
I also wonder if Istanbul might break out of the pack, and overtake Tier 3 cities like Milan or Madrid
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
But Edinburgh didn't have many bus users either till they reduced the number of lanes available for cars and allocated them to buses.
Honestly, it just sounds like you have rubbish public transport and active travel provision.
Let's fix that
Your stats don't show that, instead you have once again got a very dodgy graphic whose figures don't start at zero on one axis.
Edinburgh did have lots of bus users, over 75k of them, in the mid-90s according to that graphic. Not that you'd realise it if you just looked at the chart rather than reading the numbers.
Going from 5k bus lanes to 60k didn't lead to an 12-fold increase in bus traffic. Instead bus traffic hasn't even doubled in that time. Its gone up by about 50%, which is pathetically low all things considered.
Not to forget that bus traffic increased nationwide due to factors like free bus travel introduction that had absolutely nothing to do with bus lanes either.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
My son who lives in Bangkok travels all over East Asia and Australasia without changing planes. What’s more the educational and sporting opportunities for his children seem better in Bangkok.
This summer is the first time I’ve felt that London is SERIOUSLY recovering from the twin blows of Covid and Brexit
It might partly be because I’ve travelled so much - and I’ve seen how fucked everywhere else is
Nonetheless my usual “London is back” cheerleading has a bit more conviction about it, than normal
Off out in London tomorrow evening; will report back. I'm still sceptical of "London Is Back" though I v much want it to be.
It’s almost pure anecdata and basically intuitive; you might well conclude I’m deluded
Tho there are some genuine fact-based straws in the wind. International Tourism is back big time (it’s back almost everywhere in Europe). That’s great for the West End obvs
Also the hideous candy shops are being closed down: as a matter of policy. That shows confidence. People are less desperate for rent-payers to fill retail
Finally there’s the matter of comparisons. In an age of great uncertainty, London projects stability. Which feels quite precious now. eg You’re not going to boil to death nor freeze to bits (you might commit suicide because drizzle but hey).
London’s politics is reassuringly centrist. As the EU swings hard right, British politics becomes more moderate. We’ve had our populist moment. Meanwhile London avoids the scourges that afflict American cities: we have almost none of the homeless opioid awfulness, crime is much lower, even the race debate is far less venomous, etc
If you want to live in an English-speaking world city in a stable country, with world class culture, food, history - with access to the nicer bits of Europe but far away from wars and deadly heatwaves and migration waves - London is your only choice
I’m genuinely optimistic
There are only three English-speaking world cities. The other two are Singapore and New York, which are nowhere near Europe.
There are more than three in England alone. Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham and more.
Not to forget that English is spoken in Amsterdam, Lisbon, Frankfurt, Stockholm ... and even in Paris.
I would add Melbourne & Sydney, both over 5 million with highly diverse populations. Jo'burg too?
Top tier world cities where English is the main spoken language are probably limited to London, NYC and maybe LA at a pinch.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
That’s a very fair list. Tho sadly I think you have to remove Hong Kong since Beijing tightened its grip. It has lost an awful lot of lustre. Who would risk moving there?
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
Part of my job involves helping clients assess where to locate regional HQs (as well as other activities like R&D or manufacturing). For Asia pretty much nobody chooses HK anymore. This is a massive turnaround from only a decade ago when it was close to level pegging with Singapore. Singapore is now the only game in town unless your main regional market is mainland China or Australia. Even Japanese and Korean companies have AsPac headquarters in Singapore.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Does it have to be particularly nearby ? (Though I guess that makes sense.)
My son who lives in Bangkok travels all over East Asia and Australasia without changing planes. What’s more the educational and sporting opportunities for his children seem better in Bangkok.
Yes Bangkok has good schools for expats. It also has excellent (and comparatively cheap) private healthcare, dentistry etc
If you can make sure you don’t have to drive too much/too far, it’s seductive
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
While we're on about colonial exploitation, it occurs to me that Prigozhin and his Wagner group are the modern analogue of Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company...
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
It was put to me (when handover was looming, and before that, when the Joint Declaration was being formulated) that China would take over 20 square miles of rubble rather than compromise in inch on its perceived territorial integrity. I guess we are seeing that the same applies to the homogeneity of expressed political views.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Funny definition of progressive you have.
Please explain how it is progressive to be funding travel for the wealthiest generation, who don't need to get to work, while taxing the transportation of those who are getting to work in order to pay their rent and living expenses?
My retired mum has more disposable income than we do (even though we both earn a reasonable living(, and it drives me mad how she gets free or discounted travel all over the shop (not to mention tickets for things and other various OAP perks).
The difficulty is that there is huge chunk of pensioners who would genuinely struggle to survive without them. Just annoys me that there's a load of retired and well-off boomers freeloading on the top.
Poor diddums, probably worships millionaires but hates pensioners being able to go on a bus. Take a look at yourself in a mirror.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
It was put to me (when handover was looming, and before that, when the Joint Declaration was being formulated) that China would take over 20 square miles of rubble rather than compromise in inch on its perceived territorial integrity. I guess we are seeing that the same applies to the homogeneity of expressed political views.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
Probably true. Deeply sad
I adored the old Hong Kong. Used to be one of my favourite cities on earth. It felt like New York must have felt like - in about 1920. Endless opportunity amid glittering towers. It was the future
What slightly puzzles me about Sunak´s attack on the long standing consensus that significantly restrictive green policies are necessary, is the very poor politics of his position.
The fact is that there is a major strand of Tory support that firmly supports the principle of acting on climate change, even if they are not settled on policy details. These are core supporters of the Party, not strictly the "old maids bicycling to Communion" but certainly socially active Tories; the kind who staff Citizens Advice Bureaux, serve as local councilors or as in some other local capacity such as school governors charities or even magistrates. Many view with concern the financial position of their children or grandchildren but are equivocal about the inheritance tax situation. They raise money for local hospitals, they see the daily pressure on the NHS is not a myth.
Increasingly they no longer view the Tories as "their party". Strident right wingers they are not, and while their natural moderation made them abhor Corbyn, increasingly they view the Daily Mail, Trumpian style hostility expressed by the likes of Braverman, Patel and even Sunak himself as hostility directed towards them- and as they watch public services dissolve into a shambles, they are increasingly not sitting on the sidelines any more.
Every Liberal Democrat branch in the country can tell you of these former Conservatives now coming out to campaign for the Lib Dems. This abandonment of a major plank of the green agenda will turn this trickle into something a lot bigger. Places like Surrey, Gloucestershire and Aberdeenshire are seeing the Lib Dems not only running things locally, but now looking like making major progress in the national battle too.
This green U-turn by Sunak could be the final mistake that alienates the Shires from the Tories for the last time.
It's a core vote strategy designed to prevent a total Tory wipe out, aimed at winning the next but one or two elections not the next one.
What core vote, if they have alienated the active middle class?
Retired pensioners.
My retired parents love bussing around for free (primarily to wind me up, I think).
A sleight of hand from Labour could be to neutralise this debate by targeting older people with more free bus/train travel (local routes only, perhaps).
Highly progressive too.
Good idea, the older generation do not get enough from the state !!
I have never applied for my free pass.
Is that because you go by limousine everywhere? 👍
I use my SUV, on odd occasions I take a train but not often.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
No, its entirely normal.
There's a reason over 90% of travel is via car. People can find parking spaces normally, whether that be in car parks, or on the road. Shops and businesses tend to have car parks for their staff and patrons anyway, and houses have road space in front of them to park on. Where exactly is the problem?
Where do you go to that you can't find easy parking near to?
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Holding power matters far more than keeping a territory successful, to the leaders of the CCP.
You could place these people in charge of Switzerland, and they'd turn it into a cesspit, so long as they profited personally.
The three most successful low tax countries on the planet are Ireland, Switzerland and Singapore. It's probably no coincidence that all three are also militarily neutral. Ireland isn't politically neutral because it's an EU member, but it isn't in NATO. They also have relatively low levels of corruption. Neutrality and low corruption allows them to attract money from everywhere without fear of state capture through either grift or geopolitics.
Political risk has gone higher up the list of location factors than it was before - roughly - the 2014 Ukraine invasion. Since 2014 we've seen political risk featuring more and more in multinationals' decisions driven by the Scottish and Catalan independence referendums, the Brexit vote, Trump, multiple ratchets on the Russian journey to pariah state from Crimea onwards, China's crackdown in Hong Kong and its threats to Taiwan. Meanwhile Singapore, Ireland and Switzerland sail serenely on, untouched by any of this except as beneficiaries (Ireland post-Brexit - and would also have benefited post Scottish Indy; Singapore post-HK; Switzerland post EU Russian sanctions, sadly).
These three are also in the goldilocks position of being small and outward facing enough to focus their economies on attracting FDI while being large, developed and (more recently) transparent enough not to be punished internationally as classic tax havens or spurned by investors as hard to get to or lonely outposts.
While we're on about colonial exploitation, it occurs to me that Prigozhin and his Wagner group are the modern analogue of Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company...
I'd say more Sir John Hawkwood's White Company, or the other free companies of the 14th to 16th centuries. I don't think they have any interest in government.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Holding power matters far more than keeping a territory successful, to the leaders of the CCP.
You could place these people in charge of Switzerland, and they'd turn it into a cesspit, so long as they profited personally.
The three most successful low tax countries on the planet are Ireland, Switzerland and Singapore. It's probably no coincidence that all three are also militarily neutral...
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
It was put to me (when handover was looming, and before that, when the Joint Declaration was being formulated) that China would take over 20 square miles of rubble rather than compromise in inch on its perceived territorial integrity. I guess we are seeing that the same applies to the homogeneity of expressed political views.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
Probably true. Deeply sad
I adored the old Hong Kong. Used to be one of my favourite cities on earth. It felt like New York must have felt like - in about 1920. Endless opportunity amid glittering towers. It was the future
Now I wonder if I will ever go there again
Same here. There was a magic to it and now I wouldn't dream of going there.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Holding power matters far more than keeping a territory successful, to the leaders of the CCP.
You could place these people in charge of Switzerland, and they'd turn it into a cesspit, so long as they profited personally.
The three most successful low tax countries on the planet are Ireland, Switzerland and Singapore. It's probably no coincidence that all three are also militarily neutral. Ireland isn't politically neutral because it's an EU member, but it isn't in NATO. They also have relatively low levels of corruption. Neutrality and low corruption allows them to attract money from everywhere without fear of state capture through either grift or geopolitics.
Political risk has gone higher up the list of location factors than it was before - roughly - the 2014 Ukraine invasion. Since 2014 we've seen political risk featuring more and more in multinationals' decisions driven by the Scottish and Catalan independences referendums, the Brexit vote, Trump, multiple ratchets on the Russian journey to pariah state from Crimea onwards, China's crackdown in Hong Kong and its threats to Taiwan. Meanwhile Singapore, Ireland and Switzerland sail serenely on, untouched by any of this except as beneficiaries (Ireland post-Brexit - and would also have benefited post Scottish Indy; Singapore post-HK; Switzerland post EU Russian sanctions, sadly).
These three are also in the goldilocks position of being small and outward facing enough to focus their economies on attracting FDI while being large, developed and (more recently) transparent enough not to be punished internationally as classic tax havens or spurned by investors as hard to get to or lonely outposts.
Singapore and Switzerland do have quite formidable militaries. Ireland benefits from being protected by NATO, without having to contribute towards it.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Holding power matters far more than keeping a territory successful, to the leaders of the CCP.
You could place these people in charge of Switzerland, and they'd turn it into a cesspit, so long as they profited personally.
The three most successful low tax countries on the planet are Ireland, Switzerland and Singapore. It's probably no coincidence that all three are also militarily neutral...
And small.
But not too small. Hence why Jersey, IoM or Cayman are never going to threaten their position.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
It was put to me (when handover was looming, and before that, when the Joint Declaration was being formulated) that China would take over 20 square miles of rubble rather than compromise in inch on its perceived territorial integrity. I guess we are seeing that the same applies to the homogeneity of expressed political views.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
Probably true. Deeply sad
I adored the old Hong Kong. Used to be one of my favourite cities on earth. It felt like New York must have felt like - in about 1920. Endless opportunity amid glittering towers. It was the future
Now I wonder if I will ever go there again
Same here. There was a magic to it and now I wouldn't dream of going there.
Remember the view of Hong Kong, at night, from Tsim Sha Tsui in Kowloon? Probably my favourite urban view on earth
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
It was put to me (when handover was looming, and before that, when the Joint Declaration was being formulated) that China would take over 20 square miles of rubble rather than compromise in inch on its perceived territorial integrity. I guess we are seeing that the same applies to the homogeneity of expressed political views.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
Probably true. Deeply sad
I adored the old Hong Kong. Used to be one of my favourite cities on earth. It felt like New York must have felt like - in about 1920. Endless opportunity amid glittering towers. It was the future
Now I wonder if I will ever go there again
Same here. There was a magic to it and now I wouldn't dream of going there.
While much less serious than what's happened since, the downfall of Hong Kong began when they built the new airport. Flying into Hong Kong between the skyscrapers to the old airport was one of the most unique experiences you could ever have.
Last time I flew to Hong Kong was by coincidence the week the new airport opened. We flew in the day after it had opened, it was sparkling and bright and shiny but lacked all the charisma of the old experience. A week later flew out, the airport was filthy and didn't look like it had seen a cleaner since it had opened.
What did the CCP really gain from throttling Hong Kong?
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
It was put to me (when handover was looming, and before that, when the Joint Declaration was being formulated) that China would take over 20 square miles of rubble rather than compromise in inch on its perceived territorial integrity. I guess we are seeing that the same applies to the homogeneity of expressed political views.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
Probably true. Deeply sad
I adored the old Hong Kong. Used to be one of my favourite cities on earth. It felt like New York must have felt like - in about 1920. Endless opportunity amid glittering towers. It was the future
Now I wonder if I will ever go there again
I have a lot of great memories of Hong Kong. I once got knocked clean the fuck out by a fellow officer when we were fighting over which of us had the right to steal an old lady's Flying Pigeon in order to cheat in a running race.
That was the same trip where we ended up on Victoria Peak in the hot tub of a notable British businessman with Mongolian (?) prostitutes. He had to get the bus to work with his next the morning and she was in the disheveled remains of a Mongolian's prostitute's notion of an evening dress while he cowered behind his SCMP.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
But Edinburgh didn't have many bus users either till they reduced the number of lanes available for cars and allocated them to buses.
Honestly, it just sounds like you have rubbish public transport and active travel provision.
Let's fix that
Your stats don't show that, instead you have once again got a very dodgy graphic whose figures don't start at zero on one axis.
Edinburgh did have lots of bus users, over 75k of them, in the mid-90s according to that graphic. Not that you'd realise it if you just looked at the chart rather than reading the numbers.
Going from 5k bus lanes to 60k didn't lead to an 12-fold increase in bus traffic. Instead bus traffic hasn't even doubled in that time. Its gone up by about 50%, which is pathetically low all things considered.
Not to forget that bus traffic increased nationwide due to factors like free bus travel introduction that had absolutely nothing to do with bus lanes either.
I found it *much* easier to commute by bus when they brought in bus lanes, believe me.
Car ownership has been growing, too, and - just as important - cars have been growing bigger. The Morningside MRAP is a thing, using its 4x4 capability to do nothing more than go up the slope from the Canny Man.
Given how many people go on the bus in Edinburgh city centre, that is a *huge* number of people who don't need to drive around and - jusat as importantly in Edinburgh - park.
Comments
There is no need to subsidise new Teslas, that market is up and running. Investing in charging infrastructure for those who can't charge at home, and encouraging affordability will smooth the transition next.
Incidentally I don't know if its just anecdote but I have recently seen more and more cars being advertised at 0% APR offers. Advert on the radio yesterday for Mazda, local Ford retailer has a giant "speak to us about 0% APR" poster outside etc too.
Considering how interest rates have been going up not down, I'm curious what is behind this? Not looked into it, but wonder if the heat that was seen during COVID is going out of the sales market now so they're appealing more to this now?
Why would you do such an insane thing?
As to why? Because not everyone has the same interests. If all wanted the same things, that'd be boring.
Sydney, Chicago, SF/Bay Area probably sit beneath them, and then Melbourne, Auckland, Boston and various others in the division below that (I'd probably sit Manchester and Dublin here too).
Then there are are the cities where English is enough to get by, even if it's not the main spoken language: Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at the top, then Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Perhaps Berlin and Budapest.
Put his picture up over the mantelpiece in every Tory social club now.
Who do I vote for if I'm against London welcoming leading figures in international organised crime? Are there any political parties with the guts not to lick mafia boots?
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
The main trick is to add to the price, and pitch a moderate sounding monthly spread over years.
Same as buying a mobile on a monthly contract. You are actually buying a phone on HP at a murderous interest rate, while locking yourself to a provider for a couple of years.
There are bound to be pictures of their humiliation, probably including one showing a few of them carrying iPhones or something so that Heil and Express and Torygraph readers can get a hard-on.
There are plenty of people with money who could live in London but don’t - because they don’t like cities - but that’s different. They prefer pretty small towns or villages - or the Outer Hebrides. They don’t move to Salford
The polls are also clear, the only demographics the Conservatives are still clearly ahead with are pensioners and Leave voters
I disagree with a lot that you post, but I've always respected you for saying you'd vote Labour if necessary to keep the SNP out in Scotland.
It’s probably dropped from near-World City status
down to Tier 3 or 4. A tragedy
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
My point was that the Premier League owners are a group of fine, outstanding, lovely people.
Interrupting their revenue stream would only result in kind words, thoughtful actions and cute fluffy kittens.
Not everyone likes the same things. The choice isn't wanting to live in London or the Outer Hebrides, people exist on a spectrum and some people want the London side of things and others can't stand that, and some prefer more moderate cities.
The policy would have to be a bit cleverer. Subsiding retirees on Skye...nah.
The future is Chinese-led...
This is part of the problem for levelling up though. London has many geo-economic advantages. RUK does not.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
When you've got them down to the final, final, final price and made the sales droid eat some of their commission then, and only then, bring up the subject of trade in and finance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
It will be interesting to see where Hong Kong is in a couple of years time.
You might do it for pressing family reasons - to be near a dying mother - but then your move would not be voluntary. And you’d probably finish your mum off by smothering her with a scatter cushion so you could move briskly back to London
When I lived in Malmesbury, it was fascinating to see the separation between the two worlds. The incomers lived in the nice old houses. The people whose families had lived there for centuries lived in the housing estate over the hill. They even drank is separate pubs.
So you had a bucolic little town for the middle class. And a very different place for the actual locals.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
I've not heard a good explanation of why we shouldn't explore for gas in the North Sea. Are there really people who would prefer us to be importing gas from new fields thousands of miles away that has to be liquified and then re-gassified on arrival. Or do they want us to abandon all fossil fuels with immediate effect.
The trouble is Singapore is filling up and hideously expensive now. Rents are pricing a lot of people out of the city. It's orders of magnitude worse than London or NYC. So there is an opportunity for a nearby city to lay claim to HQs. Initially for middle office and shared services and eventually for proper headquarters. The two main candidates are KL and Bangkok, and I think Bangkok has the strongest chance - it needs to expand its air links though. That's where Singapore really benefits from being a hub.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
(Though I guess that makes sense.)
Seems as though greater preparation for the shootout might have made the difference.
Plenty of history to have learned from.
There are bits of both boroughs that are grim. But they also have massively gentrified Georgian squares where houses go for a million quid. The market doesn't lie.
Because having nice stuff on your doorstep (or a tube ride away) beats car parking that allows you to drive to nice stuff.
What I'd like to do is have more places like that, so that the price can come down.
Bangkok v KL sounds right. KL is cleaner, greener and a bit richer but it’s also quite boring and Islamic and discriminates against non Malays. Bangkok is more chaotic and polluted but also much more dynamic and fun, and slightly better located
I’d bet on Bangkok. It has the momentum (if the troubled politics allows)
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
That said there are some that attempt to manage the region from Dubai. That doesn't really work well long term. Timezone issue + lack of local knowledge of Asian markets.
Honestly, it just sounds like you have rubbish public transport and active travel provision.
Let's fix that
Joke went over your head it seems. I was joking, replying in kind to what Leon had just written.
Of course some people want to live in Tower Hamlets and Hackney. Just as some people want to live in Liverpool and Manchester, which was the entire point. There are houses in Liverpool and Manchester that go for multi million pounds too.
Most Northern cities tend to have an incredibly posh district, with huge houses with gardens, built in Victorian times, which you would need far more than a typical professional salary to afford in London.
They had a magnificent, thriving, near World City in their control and on their doorstep. A glittering gateway and a bright advert for China. Now it plunges down the rankings, it may never recover
I guess they set an example and scared Taiwan. But jeez
Dubai has got some of the HK traffic driven out by the Chinese in the last couple of years, but as you say it’s a little too far away to truly manage the AsPac region.
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
It's not going to go back now, and is economically important enough to be defended.
You could place these people in charge of Switzerland, and they'd turn it into a cesspit, so long as they profited personally.
Needs much better air links, less corruption and stable politics, but in 10-20 years it could be a contender
I also wonder if Istanbul might break out of the pack, and overtake Tier 3 cities like Milan or Madrid
According to official government figures, around 100,000 employees in technology emigrated in 2022 – some 10pc of the total workforce
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/07/putin-has-debased-and-exiled-russias-own-geniuses/
Edinburgh did have lots of bus users, over 75k of them, in the mid-90s according to that graphic. Not that you'd realise it if you just looked at the chart rather than reading the numbers.
Going from 5k bus lanes to 60k didn't lead to an 12-fold increase in bus traffic. Instead bus traffic hasn't even doubled in that time. Its gone up by about 50%, which is pathetically low all things considered.
Not to forget that bus traffic increased nationwide due to factors like free bus travel introduction that had absolutely nothing to do with bus lanes either.
If you can make sure you don’t have to drive too much/too far, it’s seductive
But leave town April-May when it hits 45C
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
The CCP is terrified that people will openly question its legitimacy and here we have one example of that.
I adored the old Hong Kong. Used to be one of my favourite cities on earth. It felt like New York must have felt like - in about 1920. Endless opportunity amid glittering towers. It was the future
Now I wonder if I will ever go there again
There's a reason over 90% of travel is via car. People can find parking spaces normally, whether that be in car parks, or on the road. Shops and businesses tend to have car parks for their staff and patrons anyway, and houses have road space in front of them to park on. Where exactly is the problem?
Where do you go to that you can't find easy parking near to?
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Political risk has gone higher up the list of location factors than it was before - roughly - the 2014 Ukraine invasion. Since 2014 we've seen political risk featuring more and more in multinationals' decisions driven by the Scottish and Catalan independence referendums, the Brexit vote, Trump, multiple ratchets on the Russian journey to pariah state from Crimea onwards, China's crackdown in Hong Kong and its threats to Taiwan. Meanwhile Singapore, Ireland and Switzerland sail serenely on, untouched by any of this except as beneficiaries (Ireland post-Brexit - and would also have benefited post Scottish Indy; Singapore post-HK; Switzerland post EU Russian sanctions, sadly).
These three are also in the goldilocks position of being small and outward facing enough to focus their economies on attracting FDI while being large, developed and (more recently) transparent enough not to be punished internationally as classic tax havens or spurned by investors as hard to get to or lonely outposts.
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays.
Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum.
Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum.
Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum.
Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
😢
Last time I flew to Hong Kong was by coincidence the week the new airport opened. We flew in the day after it had opened, it was sparkling and bright and shiny but lacked all the charisma of the old experience. A week later flew out, the airport was filthy and didn't look like it had seen a cleaner since it had opened.
That was the same trip where we ended up on Victoria Peak in the hot tub of a notable British businessman with Mongolian (?) prostitutes. He had to get the bus to work with his next the morning and she was in the disheveled remains of a Mongolian's prostitute's notion of an evening dress while he cowered behind his SCMP.
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
Car ownership has been growing, too, and - just as important - cars have been growing bigger. The Morningside MRAP is a thing, using its 4x4 capability to do nothing more than go up the slope from the Canny Man.
Given how many people go on the bus in Edinburgh city centre, that is a *huge* number of people who don't need to drive around and - jusat as importantly in Edinburgh - park.