LAB gets closer to the SNP in Scotland – politicalbetting.com

System

LAB gets closer to the SNP in Scotland – politicalbetting.com

Labour are now just 4pts behind the SNP in Scotland in our Westminster voting intentionSNP: 36% (-1 from Apr)Lab: 32% (+4)Con: 15% (-2)Lib Dem: 6% (-2)Highest Labour result since the referendum, worst for SNP since 2018https://t.co/cgQ1f5lI2K pic.twitter.com/Iq999puPdV

Read the full story here

tlg86

First.

ydoethur

tlg86 said:

First.

Unlike Labour/SNP* in Scotland.

*delete according to political taste.

BartholomewRoberts

I don't think an overall Labour majority is as big an ask as people make out. A swing big enough can take a lot before it, Scotland 2015 is a case in point. The SNP went from only 10% of seats, to 95% of seats.

All that it requires for Labour to win a majority (or any other party) is for them to win enough votes.

Malmesbury

The real question is what happens next with the SNP finance story.

I honestly can't think of an explanation that makes sense of the facts we know.

viewcode

I'll bang on about one of my hobby horses again: if poll leads like the ones Labour currently have are maintained to the election, you have to start figuring that they'll get a majority. I know it's a big ask, but 40ish vs 20ish is a big answer.

Malmesbury

viewcode said:

I'll bang on about one of my hobby horses again: if poll leads like the ones Labour currently have are maintained to the election, you have to start figuring that they'll get a majority. I know it's a big ask, but 40ish vs 20ish is a big answer.

It's the 538 idea - the polls mean that the potential voting on day X is Y. The closer you get to the election the harder it gets for it to change *that* much.

Then again, May nearly threw away a huge poll lead *in* an election campaign. So... it can happen.

EDIT: A Labour majority is getting more likely, in my view, though.

LostPassword

Westminster seats won at GE2019.
SNP 48
Tories 6
Lib Dems 4
Labour 1

Fairliered

The figures indicate that, rather than SNP voters switching to Labour, other unionist voters are switching from the Conservatives and Lib Dems to Labour, if they think Labour are best placed to beat the SNP.

TimS

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

I'll bang on about one of my hobby horses again: if poll leads like the ones Labour currently have are maintained to the election, you have to start figuring that they'll get a majority. I know it's a big ask, but 40ish vs 20ish is a big answer.

It's the 538 idea - the polls mean that the potential voting on day X is Y. The closer you get to the election the harder it gets for it to change *that* much.

Then again, May nearly threw away a huge poll lead *in* an election campaign. So... it can happen.

EDIT: A Labour majority is getting more likely, in my view, though.

There’s a rule of thumb in meteorology that the more gradual the onset of a new regime (regardless of whether that’s wet or dry, hot or cold), the longer it will last once established. Especially true of rising pressure.

I think that’s true of polling too. Rapid fluctuations can reverse equally rapidly. The Truss collapse reversed pretty quickly after she was booted out, albeit to a new slightly lower plateau. May saw a big jump in VI after taking over post referendum, and sure enough that lead disappeared very quickly. Thatcher plunged following the poll tax but Major won back most of the lost votes when he took over.

Whereas the Tory climb in the polls from 2005 to 2010 was fairly gradual and sustained. It wobbled a bit but was on firmer foundations. Likewise the Labour rise from 1992 to 1997. The polling stasis means it’s trench warfare now, not a war of movement. I can’t see where a rapid swing back to the conservatives would come from. A 2008-10 style slow creep back is perfectly possible though.

TimS

Fairliered said:

The figures indicate that, rather than SNP voters switching to Labour, other unionist voters are switching from the Conservatives and Lib Dems to Labour, if they think Labour are best placed to beat the SNP.

That might not help Labour if those voters are in the wrong place. If it’s tactical unionist
voters who can no longer hold their nose and vote Tory then that helps the SNP.

BartholomewRoberts

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Carnyx

[Edit, sortry]

OGH, have another look at that tweet. That table. And that graph.

Yougov do understand the difference between Holyrood and Westminster, right?

rcs1000

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

rcs1000

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans")

Never knew you'd been to Dursley!

RochdalePioneers

Oh good. My 19:55 flight home from Shatwick now showing as 00:09.

I left home at 04:15 this morning...

OnlyLivingBoy

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

Christ, is there any issue that Nigel Farage isn't completely wrong-headed on? How can anyone in their right mind object to a woman feeding her child as nature intended? It's like saying restaurants should be able to ban people coughing, or doing up their shoelaces. Complete madness.

Sandpit

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

As with the bank accounts story, there’s a big difference between refusing something up front, and accepting the booking but then cancelling at the last minute following an activist campaign.

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

I would have thought under previous notional results that's actually a gain of at least two, rather than a hold of 'all six.'

HYUFD

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

rcs1000

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

Christ, is there any issue that Nigel Farage isn't completely wrong-headed on? How can anyone in their right mind object to a woman feeding her child as nature intended? It's like saying restaurants should be able to ban people coughing, or doing up their shoelaces. Complete madness.

I don't support restaurants that ban women from breastfeeding. But I don't think it's the law's job to enforce that.

Casino_Royale

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

Curtice I always take extremely seriously.

He's a bit awks in real life (off the scale spectrum on social skills) but that's probably why he's so good at numbers/analysis too.

TimS

RochdalePioneers said:

Oh good. My 19:55 flight home from Shatwick now showing as 00:09.

I left home at 04:15 this morning...

I didn’t think they flew that late. It’s when it changes to 07:30 that you can get really cross.

My 18:40 to Copenhagen seems still to be 18:40.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Is that subsamples?

Also - have a think about what your party would do in that situation in your first option.

HYUFD

Fairliered said:

The figures indicate that, rather than SNP voters switching to Labour, other unionist voters are switching from the Conservatives and Lib Dems to Labour, if they think Labour are best placed to beat the SNP.

They are to some extent, the SNP vote is down 9% on 2019 and those voters are almost all going to Labour

OnlyLivingBoy

rcs1000 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

Christ, is there any issue that Nigel Farage isn't completely wrong-headed on? How can anyone in their right mind object to a woman feeding her child as nature intended? It's like saying restaurants should be able to ban people coughing, or doing up their shoelaces. Complete madness.

I don't support restaurants that ban women from breastfeeding. But I don't think it's the law's job to enforce that.

I absolutely do. Women who are nursing have the same rights to go to a restaurant as anyone else. People shouldn't be able to arbitrarily deny service to people.

RochdalePioneers

Allahu Akbar! Now revised to 21:15. Better than 00:09!!!

GarethoftheVale2

TimS said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Oh good. My 19:55 flight home from Shatwick now showing as 00:09.

I left home at 04:15 this morning...

I didn’t think they flew that late. It’s when it changes to 07:30 that you can get really cross.

My 18:40 to Copenhagen seems still to be 18:40.

Don't forget you can claim compo if delayed more than 3 hours. My most recent flight was delayed 2hrs 50 mins :-(

Carnyx

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rcs1000 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

Christ, is there any issue that Nigel Farage isn't completely wrong-headed on? How can anyone in their right mind object to a woman feeding her child as nature intended? It's like saying restaurants should be able to ban people coughing, or doing up their shoelaces. Complete madness.

I don't support restaurants that ban women from breastfeeding. But I don't think it's the law's job to enforce that.

I absolutely do. Women who are nursing have the same rights to go to a restaurant as anyone else. People shouldn't be able to arbitrarily deny service to people.

Should the restaurant charge corkage? It doesn't normally provide baby food, anyway, I assume, so does it charge corkage for it from a tin rather than on draught too, for consistency?

Edit: not a serious question! I have come across the odd cafe that will nuke up some baby food on request for someone eating there anyway.

darkage

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

Casino_Royale

RochdalePioneers said:

Allahu Akbar! Now revised to 21:15. Better than 00:09!!!

Maybe don't shout that at the airport.

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Is that subsamples?

Also - have a think about what your party would do in that situation in your first option.

Nope it is NOT subsamples, it is the swing from the full Scotland only Yougov Scotland Westminster poll in the thread header.

What Scottish Conservative voters do may well be to vote Labour or LD to beat the SNP where the Conservatives were not in the top 2 in 2019

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Is that subsamples?

Also - have a think about what your party would do in that situation in your first option.

Nope it is NOT subsamples, it is the swing from the full Scotland only Yougov Scotland Westminster poll in the thread header.

What Scottish Conservative voters do may well be to vote Labour or LD to beat the SNP where the Conservatives were not in the top 2 in 2019

Have *another* look at the thread header ...

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

I would have thought under previous notional results that's actually a gain of at least two, rather than a hold of 'all six.'

Ironically some Conservative leaders get a better swing to them in Scotland than England eg Sunak it seems, May and Major 1992, only Johnson and Cameron and Howard of recent Conservative leaders got a worse swing against them in Scotland than England

BartholomewRoberts

GarethoftheVale2 said:

TimS said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Oh good. My 19:55 flight home from Shatwick now showing as 00:09.

I left home at 04:15 this morning...

I didn’t think they flew that late. It’s when it changes to 07:30 that you can get really cross.

My 18:40 to Copenhagen seems still to be 18:40.

Don't forget you can claim compo if delayed more than 3 hours. My most recent flight was delayed 2hrs 50 mins :-(

Does that compensation depend upon if its delayed by factors outside the airlines control or not? Not entirely sure how it works.

I recently had a transatlantic fight with a layover scheduled for 3 hours. The second leg plane got cancelled a couple of days before we flew, which the airline blamed on the weather (storms apparently cancelled the flight on the day using that plane, meaning it'd be out of position 2 days later I guess). We were bumped into another flight the next day instead, more than 12 hours more after our original scheduled one.

Spent 2 hours on hold to the airline, at which point the customer service found an alternative flight with only a 50 minute delay. No idea why we weren't put on that originally when the tickets got rescheduled.

Not sure if I hadn't called and rearranged the tickets whether we'd have been eligible to compensation or not?

LostPassword

Fairliered said:

The figures indicate that, rather than SNP voters switching to Labour, other unionist voters are switching from the Conservatives and Lib Dems to Labour, if they think Labour are best placed to beat the SNP.

That's true for the changes in this poll compared to the previous poll, but what about the changes since the GE?

That gives:

SNP 36% (-9)
Lab 32% (+13)
Tory 15% (-10)
LibDem 6% (-4)
Green 6% (+5)*
Reform 3% (+2)**

* The Greens stood in only a small number of constituencies in 2019 so these figures are not precisely comparable.
* ** I'm treating Reform as a director successor to the Brexit Party.

There's a lot going on here. I think there's some evidence of a modest direct SNP -> Labour swing, but there's room for a lot of plausible interpretations.

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Is that subsamples?

Also - have a think about what your party would do in that situation in your first option.

Nope it is NOT subsamples, it is the swing from the full Scotland only Yougov Scotland Westminster poll in the thread header.

What Scottish Conservative voters do may well be to vote Labour or LD to beat the SNP where the Conservatives were not in the top 2 in 2019

Have *another* look at the thread header ...

Labour gets closer to the SNP in Scotland yes as the SNP to Labour swing is 11.5% since 2019 but only a 0.5% swing from Tory to SNP since 2019

algarkirk

The latest, not paywalled, from Matthew Goodwin. Worth reading for an excellent Freudian slip in the spelling fairly near the end. Message: prepare for President Goodwin of the Not a Dinosaur Party. Reality: populist anti-wokes have a point of course but even populists struggle when people want simultaneous opposites (which is always); not all populists want the same popular thing; populist leaders are rats in a sack like all the others. Question: How are the populists in Italy getting on with stopping the boats?


https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/a-reply-to-dominic-cummings?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=858965&post_id=136110626&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

BartholomewRoberts

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

Yet more reason to defang the oligopoly of developers by overhauling our convoluted planning system that plays into their hands.

Carnyx

Do I have to point out for the third time that there is something wrong with that tweet and that list of percentages?

As I am off now, and as nobody else seems to spot it: the question asks about the regional vote at Holyrood, not Westminster FPTP.

Luckyguy1983

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

Theuniondivvie

Carnyx said:

[Edit, sortry]

OGH, have another look at that tweet. That table. And that graph.

Yougov do understand the difference between Holyrood and Westminster, right?

Bloody SNP have finagled the Westminster voting system to allow children to vote. Typical!

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Is that subsamples?

Also - have a think about what your party would do in that situation in your first option.

Nope it is NOT subsamples, it is the swing from the full Scotland only Yougov Scotland Westminster poll in the thread header.

What Scottish Conservative voters do may well be to vote Labour or LD to beat the SNP where the Conservatives were not in the top 2 in 2019

Have *another* look at the thread header ...

Labour gets closer to the SNP in Scotland yes as the SNP to Labour swing is 11.5% since 2019 but only a 0.5% swing from Tory to SNP since 2019

What's that supposed to mean? When it's not even clear which Parliament we are discussing?

LostPassword

Carnyx said:

[Edit, sortry]

OGH, have another look at that tweet. That table. And that graph.

Yougov do understand the difference between Holyrood and Westminster, right?

The graphs and figures are right, just the caption for the graph in the tweet is wrong. The caption is correct on the YouGov website. (Is this another reason not to use the website formerly known as twitter? - Ed)

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

[Edit, sortry]

OGH, have another look at that tweet. That table. And that graph.

Yougov do understand the difference between Holyrood and Westminster, right?

Bloody SNP have finagled the Westminster voting system to allow children to vote. Typical!

At the very least, it makes the discussion in this thread potentially otiose.

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

Yet more reason to defang the oligopoly of developers by overhauling our convoluted planning system that plays into their hands.

Planning permission is free for the first year, then 10k per unit for the second year, £20k for the third, £40k for the fourth etc…

Or make it valid for 18 months before it lapses, requiring all of the PP work to be done again.

Carnyx

LostPassword said:

Carnyx said:

[Edit, sortry]

OGH, have another look at that tweet. That table. And that graph.

Yougov do understand the difference between Holyrood and Westminster, right?

The graphs and figures are right, just the caption for the graph in the tweet is wrong. The caption is correct on the YouGov website. (Is this another reason not to use the website formerly known as twitter? - Ed)

Oh good, thanks. But normally the caption would go with the graph, hence my suspicion.

Malmesbury

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

Yet more reason to defang the oligopoly of developers by overhauling our convoluted planning system that plays into their hands.

I am reminded of the practise that when a shipyard sends a submarine to sea or after a major overhaul, of sending a number of people from the yard. Just to check Rule 1 of submarines.

kyf_100

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

5.3% will include both new tenancies and existing tenants. Landlords tend not to put up rents by as much (or at all) for existing tenants, to avoid void periods, admin fees, credit checks etc. If you have a good tenant you prefer to keep them rather than drive them out.

So what you probably have is a situation where new tenancies are rising considerably faster than inflation (definitely the experience of most renters I know) while for existing tenants rents are rising slower than inflation.

It's when you really need to move from one rental to another that you're buggered.

Here's some data on rents collected by Spareroom.co.uk, suggesting average rents advertised on their own website went up 17% 2022-2023, which seems to track a lot more closely with the experience of renters I know. https://www.spareroom.co.uk/content/info-landlords/rentalindex/

Cookie

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

I would have thought under previous notional results that's actually a gain of at least two, rather than a hold of 'all six.'

Ironically some Conservative leaders get a better swing to them in Scotland than England eg Sunak it seems, May and Major 1992, only Johnson and Cameron and Howard of recent Conservative leaders got a worse swing against them in Scotland than England

That's not really ironic, or unexpected. Unless we were on a path to zero conservative votes in Scotland, we would always expect some occasions when the Tories do better against UNS than England - particularly after leaders who appealed largely to Enhland eg Thatcher and Johnson.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

It's slightly complicated by the boundary commission: the Conservatives held Moray last time with 45% of the vote against 44% for the SNP. But the new Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey and constituency contains 74% of Moray and 30% of Inverness and Nairn, making the seat notionally SNP.

Given the SNP's fall, mind, it's entirely possible the Conservatives win both that seat and the new Gordan and Buchan.

LostPassword

Carnyx said:

LostPassword said:

Carnyx said:

[Edit, sortry]

OGH, have another look at that tweet. That table. And that graph.

Yougov do understand the difference between Holyrood and Westminster, right?

The graphs and figures are right, just the caption for the graph in the tweet is wrong. The caption is correct on the YouGov website. (Is this another reason not to use the website formerly known as twitter? - Ed)

Oh good, thanks. But normally the caption would go with the graph, hence my suspicion.

Yeah, silly computer somewhere doing exactly as it was told to do and not working out what it should have done I expect. I had to click through to the YouGov website to check - the indignity.

The hyperlink - the very foundation stone of the world wide web - now much neglected, saved the day on this occasion.

algarkirk

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rcs1000 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

Christ, is there any issue that Nigel Farage isn't completely wrong-headed on? How can anyone in their right mind object to a woman feeding her child as nature intended? It's like saying restaurants should be able to ban people coughing, or doing up their shoelaces. Complete madness.

I don't support restaurants that ban women from breastfeeding. But I don't think it's the law's job to enforce that.

I absolutely do. Women who are nursing have the same rights to go to a restaurant as anyone else. People shouldn't be able to arbitrarily deny service to people.

Of all human activities breast feeding should be the one which most engages our support and kindness. Protecting it should be sacrosanct and a normal mark of a civilised community. Gentlemen should refrain from noticing, staring or looking but might feel a small glow of joy that the world contains such icons.

Those who find it disturbing or troubling in any sense should seek urgent psychiatric help.

rcs1000

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

These new fire rules are the legacy of the Grenfell fire, not the EU, right?

rcs1000

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

Developers are also hit by rising interest rates.

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

Do I have to point out for the third time that there is something wrong with that tweet and that list of percentages?

As I am off now, and as nobody else seems to spot it: the question asks about the regional vote at Holyrood, not Westminster FPTP.

I've messaged my contacts at YouGov pointing out their error.

TheScreamingEagles

Cash is bad. Go full digital.

Long queues formed at Bank of Ireland cash machines throughout the Republic after a “technical issue” allowed customers to withdraw money they did not have.

Irish police deployed additional officers to provide security on Tuesday evening after they became aware of unusual activity at some ATMs. Word of mouth and social media meant the queues were so large in some cases that officers were forced to turn people away.

Gardai reminded people “of their personal responsibility in carrying out their personal banking”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/irish-police-block-atms-as-customers-withdraw-cash-they-dont-have-hd0mgbh9p

TheScreamingEagles

The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is expected to visit Britain this autumn in his first visit since the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Downing Street has extended the invitation to the prince as ministers seek to capitalise on Saudi Arabia’s £1 trillion investment programme to diversify its economy away from oil.

The government is also seeking Saudi support for an early trade deal with the Gulf Co-operation Council, of which the kingdom is a key player.

However the move to welcome Prince Mohammed back into the international fold with a high-profile visit to London will attract controversy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mohammed-bin-salman-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-uk-visit-tgk8qnvcp

TheScreamingEagles

Admiral Group, one of Britain’s biggest car insurers, has lifted premiums by around 40 per in the past year and hopes to push up prices further in the months to come.

Milena Mondini de Focatiis, chief executive, conceded that Admiral had already pushed through a “very big increase” in premiums but said there was more to come: “We expect to continue to increase prices,” she told The Times.

Car insurers including Admiral have been hit by huge increases in the cost of repairs, parts and replacement cars and plan to carry on passing on the cost to policyholders to restore their profits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-warns-car-insurance-premiums-to-rise-further-snn88nndk

HYUFD

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

On today's Yougov poll there is an 11.5% swing from SNP to Labour which would see them gain 20 SNP seats which could be crucial in giving Starmer a UK wide majority even if he falls just short of an overall majority in England. With Unionist tactical voting for Labour to beat the SNP it could be even higher

https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour

Is that subsamples?

Also - have a think about what your party would do in that situation in your first option.

Nope it is NOT subsamples, it is the swing from the full Scotland only Yougov Scotland Westminster poll in the thread header.

What Scottish Conservative voters do may well be to vote Labour or LD to beat the SNP where the Conservatives were not in the top 2 in 2019

Have *another* look at the thread header ...

Labour gets closer to the SNP in Scotland yes as the SNP to Labour swing is 11.5% since 2019 but only a 0.5% swing from Tory to SNP since 2019

What's that supposed to mean? When it's not even clear which Parliament we are discussing?

It means 20 Labour gains from the SNP at Westminster, as the Westminster Scotland only poll shows

TheScreamingEagles

So the figures in the YouGov tweet are correct but they've used the wrong graphic.

darkage

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

There is pressure to add more regulation on to the building industry from every lobby group imaginable. If they were all accepted then no house would ever be built. What has happened now is that the Conservatives have no policy on housing. In this vacuum they now seem to add in every single new regulation any vaguely favoured group demands. It is a complete reversal of where they started in 2012/2013, when they got rid of regulations to facilitate new housebuilding - although this approach abruptly ended with the Grenfell fire. I suspect that this cycle will just basically repeat itself again several times over my lifetime.

Malmesbury

Apparently the Russian deputy defence minister has died.

1) Window
2) Tea
3) Aftershave
4) Suicide by gunshot to back

Place your bets…

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is expected to visit Britain this autumn in his first visit since the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Downing Street has extended the invitation to the prince as ministers seek to capitalise on Saudi Arabia’s £1 trillion investment programme to diversify its economy away from oil.

The government is also seeking Saudi support for an early trade deal with the Gulf Co-operation Council, of which the kingdom is a key player.

However the move to welcome Prince Mohammed back into the international fold with a high-profile visit to London will attract controversy.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mohammed-bin-salman-khashoggi-saudi-arabia-uk-visit-tgk8qnvcp

What's a little brazen state murder between friends? Time has passed, and I'm sure they're not up to anything untoward anymore, it's all good.

kle4

Malmesbury said:

Apparently the Russian deputy defence minister has died.

1) Window
2) Tea
3) Aftershave
4) Suicide by gunshot to back

Place your bets…

I'm guessing his heart stopped in a noble sacrifice to punish a traitorous mind.

TheScreamingEagles

Malmesbury said:

Apparently the Russian deputy defence minister has died.

1) Window
2) Tea
3) Aftershave
4) Suicide by gunshot to back

Place your bets…

5) Said something accurate derogatory about Radiohead.

carnforth

TheScreamingEagles said:

Admiral Group, one of Britain’s biggest car insurers, has lifted premiums by around 40 per in the past year and hopes to push up prices further in the months to come.

Milena Mondini de Focatiis, chief executive, conceded that Admiral had already pushed through a “very big increase” in premiums but said there was more to come: “We expect to continue to increase prices,” she told The Times.

Car insurers including Admiral have been hit by huge increases in the cost of repairs, parts and replacement cars and plan to carry on passing on the cost to policyholders to restore their profits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-warns-car-insurance-premiums-to-rise-further-snn88nndk

My car insurance went from £240 last year to £221 this year, renewed last week (Hastings Direct). So these rises seem to be unevenly applied.

Separately, insurance premium tax keeps going up each year: presumably it will be replaced with VAT once it reaches 20%

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

So, on the whole Edinburgh Festival fringe things with people being cancelled etc etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643

I came across this gem from the NUS Scottish President:

"However, NUS Scotland president Ellie Gomersall, who has campaigned for a change to gender laws, backed Leith Arches.

She told BBC News: "This is about the comedy club's right to decide who it is they are platforming, who it is they are promoting, who it is they are allowing their space to be used by.""

She does realise that, on her interpretation, she would be happy with a club banning someone who is black, gay, disabled etc? After all, she is taking about the comedy club's right to refuse someone....

The funny bit is that Nigel Farage has campaigned on allowing restaurants to be able to ban people from breastfeeding in them.

And I fully support that!

The law should be used sparingly. People should be allowed to say "my church is only for heterosexual marriages", or "my comedy club will only have people who are trans-friendly".

Now, clearly there are lines. If you are inciting violence ("at our church, we openly advocate for the murder of Radiohead fans"), then you have crossed the line.

But - by and large - people should be allowed to be bigoted. And on the other hand, it's OK for us to boycott and demonstrate outside their premises about how bigoted they are.

I don't know how much difference it makes to the argument, but I gather that Linehan was announced as a 'surprise guest' long after the original booking was accepted.
And he's found an alternative venue.

Is it a freedom of speech, or freedom of trade issue ?

bondegezou

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

That is all true. However, it’s a little bit more complicated. Wage growth is averaged over many people, and some people aren’t on a wage anyway. That figure for rent rises is another average. Some people are going to see a big increase in their rent when their wage is unchanged. Some are going to see a stable rent but a big increase in take-home pay. The higher the (average) figures, the more room there is for both these sorts of situations.

So, hurrah for housing cost increases below inflation, i.e. real terms decreases, but hold out some sympathy for those caught on the wrong side of big changes. It would be better if both rent increases and wage increases were lower (while the latter are still higher than the former): more stability.

TheScreamingEagles

carnforth said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Admiral Group, one of Britain’s biggest car insurers, has lifted premiums by around 40 per in the past year and hopes to push up prices further in the months to come.

Milena Mondini de Focatiis, chief executive, conceded that Admiral had already pushed through a “very big increase” in premiums but said there was more to come: “We expect to continue to increase prices,” she told The Times.

Car insurers including Admiral have been hit by huge increases in the cost of repairs, parts and replacement cars and plan to carry on passing on the cost to policyholders to restore their profits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-warns-car-insurance-premiums-to-rise-further-snn88nndk

My car insurance went from £240 last year to £221 this year, renewed last week (Hastings Direct). So these rises seem to be unevenly applied.

Separately, insurance premium tax keeps going up each year: presumably it will be replaced with VAT once it reaches 20%

Our renewal quote was up from £600 to £800, after a phone call I got it down to £560.

I would guess these price increases are going through inertia.

ydoethur

Malmesbury said:

Apparently the Russian deputy defence minister has died.

1) Window
2) Tea
3) Aftershave
4) Suicide by gunshot to back

Place your bets…

I wish they'd do something original.

5) He accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.
6) He tragically cut his own throat while combing his hair.

Luckyguy1983

darkage said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

There is pressure to add more regulation on to the building industry from every lobby group imaginable. If they were all accepted then no house would ever be built. What has happened now is that the Conservatives have no policy on housing. In this vacuum they now seem to add in every single new regulation any vaguely favoured group demands. It is a complete reversal of where they started in 2012/2013, when they got rid of regulations to facilitate new housebuilding - although this approach abruptly ended with the Grenfell fire. I suspect that this cycle will just basically repeat itself again several times over my lifetime.

I'm just too cynical - I just don't think they have any intention whatsoever of helping housing supply meet the demand. I'd suggest the opposite in fact. Probably a Davos thing. We are meant to 'own nothing and be happy about it' in a few year's time as the infamous quotation goes.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

carnforth said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Admiral Group, one of Britain’s biggest car insurers, has lifted premiums by around 40 per in the past year and hopes to push up prices further in the months to come.

Milena Mondini de Focatiis, chief executive, conceded that Admiral had already pushed through a “very big increase” in premiums but said there was more to come: “We expect to continue to increase prices,” she told The Times.

Car insurers including Admiral have been hit by huge increases in the cost of repairs, parts and replacement cars and plan to carry on passing on the cost to policyholders to restore their profits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-warns-car-insurance-premiums-to-rise-further-snn88nndk

My car insurance went from £240 last year to £221 this year, renewed last week (Hastings Direct). So these rises seem to be unevenly applied.

Separately, insurance premium tax keeps going up each year: presumably it will be replaced with VAT once it reaches 20%

Our renewal quote was up from £600 to £800, after a phone call I got it down to £560.

I would guess these price increases are going through inertia.

Yes, I think I will try your Sky tactics on AXA when my renewal comes up. Although I'm looking at buying a company car too which will doubtless cost a bit to insure.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

carnforth said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Admiral Group, one of Britain’s biggest car insurers, has lifted premiums by around 40 per in the past year and hopes to push up prices further in the months to come.

Milena Mondini de Focatiis, chief executive, conceded that Admiral had already pushed through a “very big increase” in premiums but said there was more to come: “We expect to continue to increase prices,” she told The Times.

Car insurers including Admiral have been hit by huge increases in the cost of repairs, parts and replacement cars and plan to carry on passing on the cost to policyholders to restore their profits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-warns-car-insurance-premiums-to-rise-further-snn88nndk

My car insurance went from £240 last year to £221 this year, renewed last week (Hastings Direct). So these rises seem to be unevenly applied.

Separately, insurance premium tax keeps going up each year: presumably it will be replaced with VAT once it reaches 20%

Our renewal quote was up from £600 to £800, after a phone call I got it down to £560.

I would guess these price increases are going through inertia.

Yes, I think I will try your Sky tactics on AXA when my renewal comes up. Although I'm looking at buying a company car too which will doubtless cost a bit to insure.

Those tactics work with most companies.

Sadly not with the utilities.

One thing I flagged up at the time of the car insurance renewal, quite a few companies are putting up the mandatory excess.

I think ours was £100 and they tried to ramp it up to £250.

Very easy to miss when you get the renewal quote.

Malmesbury

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

Apparently the Russian deputy defence minister has died.

1) Window
2) Tea
3) Aftershave
4) Suicide by gunshot to back

Place your bets…

I wish they'd do something original.

5) He accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.
6) He tragically cut his own throat while combing his hair.

Nooo. They should really go for it.

7) trampled to death by an extinct breed of rhino. On the ceiling of his bathroom.

Casino_Royale

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

Apparently the Russian deputy defence minister has died.

1) Window
2) Tea
3) Aftershave
4) Suicide by gunshot to back

Place your bets…

I wish they'd do something original.

5) He accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.
6) He tragically cut his own throat while combing his hair.

Or 7) he took one of those damn suicide pills, and jumped into the corner first.

Foxy

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Yes, but we see this sort of innumeracy in other places too, such as referring to a pay rise for medical staff, when it is actually a 15th year of real terms pay cut.

Junior doctors got 2% last year at the same time CPI hit 11%. It wasn't reported as a 9% pay cut.

ydoethur

The RAC wades in on the great debate of our times:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/are-drivers-who-pay-with-cash-when-parking-being-discriminated-against/

Burgessian

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Ahem:

The Tories only got 6 seats in Scotland in 2019. It was in 2017 they got 13 seats.

Correct and Curtice today projected Rishi would hold all 6

It's slightly complicated by the boundary commission: the Conservatives held Moray last time with 45% of the vote against 44% for the SNP. But the new Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey and constituency contains 74% of Moray and 30% of Inverness and Nairn, making the seat notionally SNP.

Given the SNP's fall, mind, it's entirely possible the Conservatives win both that seat and the new Gordan and Buchan.

Yep. I suspect the Tories will do comparatively well in the northern Scottish marginals. These are socially conservative communities where Yousaf is likely to prove unappealing. Plus local issues such as oil and gas, A9 and A96 dualling, ferries, etc will have a bearing. And Labour are nowhere there except for the Western Isles which is a surefire gain for them.

BartholomewRoberts

ydoethur said:

The RAC wades in on the great debate of our times:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/are-drivers-who-pay-with-cash-when-parking-being-discriminated-against/

QTWAIN.

Discrimination is against protected classes that you can't control.

People who choose to pay extra by using an inferior, insecure and more expensive medium are responsible for paying for their own choices. If you make a choice, take responsibility for your own choices.

Foxy

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

Yes, what the country needs is jerry built, poorly insulated, energy inefficient, back to back slums built on flood plains. If they were good enough for our great-grandparents...

nico679

Stephen Barclay caught lying again regarding pensions for consultants .

Should be a perfect fit for the Tory leadership , the party is a total cesspit .

Miklosvar

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

People live in nominal money. Being a greedy old boomer rentier, I get my £££s of divis and interest each year, all behind inflation, and I find the money works just fine in terms of paying for Tesco's and holidays and wine merchants. Restaurants do not decline my credit card because I am now a real terms pauper. Your point would be a better one if peoples' incomes rose seamlessly in line with inflation. Not everyone gets a rise, not everyone gets the average, not everyone gets it instantaneously.

Foxy

nico679 said:

Stephen Barclay caught lying again regarding pensions for consultants .

Should be a perfect fit for the Tory leadership , the party is a total cesspit .

Yep. I wouldn't mind a £73 000 tax free pension!

The guy is a moron. Nailed on next Tory leader.

RochdalePioneers

I've just had my insurance renewal through. A mere 56% increase. Though if some people are having 70% increases I guess they have started low ball...

Benpointer

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

carnforth said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Admiral Group, one of Britain’s biggest car insurers, has lifted premiums by around 40 per in the past year and hopes to push up prices further in the months to come.

Milena Mondini de Focatiis, chief executive, conceded that Admiral had already pushed through a “very big increase” in premiums but said there was more to come: “We expect to continue to increase prices,” she told The Times.

Car insurers including Admiral have been hit by huge increases in the cost of repairs, parts and replacement cars and plan to carry on passing on the cost to policyholders to restore their profits.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admiral-warns-car-insurance-premiums-to-rise-further-snn88nndk

My car insurance went from £240 last year to £221 this year, renewed last week (Hastings Direct). So these rises seem to be unevenly applied.

Separately, insurance premium tax keeps going up each year: presumably it will be replaced with VAT once it reaches 20%

Our renewal quote was up from £600 to £800, after a phone call I got it down to £560.

I would guess these price increases are going through inertia.

Yes, I think I will try your Sky tactics on AXA when my renewal comes up. Although I'm looking at buying a company car too which will doubtless cost a bit to insure.

Those tactics work with most companies.

Sadly not with the utilities.

One thing I flagged up at the time of the car insurance renewal, quite a few companies are putting up the mandatory excess.

I think ours was £100 and they tried to ramp it up to £250.

Very easy to miss when you get the renewal quote.

... but quite difficult to place a value on.

BartholomewRoberts

Foxy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

Yes, what the country needs is jerry built, poorly insulated, energy inefficient, back to back slums built on flood plains. If they were good enough for our great-grandparents...

Liberate planning and the quality of homes gets better not worse. See Japan, post liberalisation of their planning system at the turn of the century, they're building homes at a rate of knots compared to here and newly built homes are getting built to much, much higher standards than older ones. Because homes built to lower standards, nobody will pay for, since there's alternatives available.

However Lucky is right [something I almost never say], some of the regulations are utterly ridiculous. EG water usage isn't primarily based on number of homes in an area, its based on the number of people living there. Currently houses are overpopulated due to a shortage, and there's a lack of empty houses. Improving the market by ensuring there's enough houses available doesn't increase water usage, it just means people can afford a home of their own and don't live in overcrowded ones.

See also: School demand and virtually every other service too.

Sandpit

Man arrested over PSNI data breach. Suspected of being in possession of material likely to be useful to terrorists, being questioned in Belfast.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12414089/Man-arrested-following-PSNI-data-leak.html

viewcode

"LK-99 isn’t a superconductor — how science sleuths solved the mystery", Nature,
16 August 2023, see https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02585-7

Carnyx

rcs1000 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

Developers are scaling back their activities at the moment. IE:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

Unsuprisingly there isn't a great will to build houses for sale in a falling market. Developers are also complaining about the new rule that you have to build two firefighting staircases and four lifts in every building over 18 metres high - this reduces significantly the space per floor, increases build costs, and all the layouts need revising .

It is funny to hear from so many commentors that we need a massive 'housebuilding drive' to house the masses - could we not just try removing some of the mountain of restrictions preventing the industry from meeting the demand? Ludicrous EU rules (which should have been disapplied by now) concerning additives going into rivers is another one - currently preventing 100,000 houses from being built.

These new fire rules are the legacy of the Grenfell fire, not the EU, right?

Not to mention the UKG imposition of fire rules, or the lack of. Not exactly nasty EU.

Miklosvar

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

The RAC wades in on the great debate of our times:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/are-drivers-who-pay-with-cash-when-parking-being-discriminated-against/

QTWAIN.

Discrimination is against protected classes that you can't control.

People who choose to pay extra by using an inferior, insecure and more expensive medium are responsible for paying for their own choices. If you make a choice, take responsibility for your own choices.

Quite. People should die for using cash, because all life has risks.

Have I got that right?

The theme of Mad Bart - Road Warrior - seems to be that everybody should be exactly like you, and if they choose or have to live slightly differently, THAT'S ON THEM. You have a car and a smartphone, so stuff the bus or cycle and cash money brigade. And renters: if they choose an inferior, insecure and more expensive form of tenure, they should take responsibility for the choice. And the homeless...

BartholomewRoberts

.

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Typical media innumeracy rant incoming ...

The BBC is running another front page article today about how rents are going up at the "fastest rate since 2016", at 5.3%. The media narrative is continuing everywhere it seems that this is in part the fault of interest rates and landlords leaving the market.

There's somewhat of a flaw in this analysis. Inflation to July is 6.8%. Wages (to June so not directly comparable to inflation) are going up by 7.8%.

Can any of our innumerate journalists ever consider if 5.3% is more or less than 6.8%? Or more or less than 7.8%?

For one of the only times in decades real rents, and real house prices, are both falling. Both in real terms prices, and relative to income.

In 2016 by contrast rent rises were higher than today in nominal terms, while inflation was supposedly only 1.6% and wage growth was only 2.2%. So that was a massive price rise in both real terms and as a proportion of income.

For the past two decades rents like house prices have typically risen faster than both inflation and house prices. It's baby steps but excellent news that the opposite is happening today and ideally long may that continue.

We need to build massively more houses still in order to further reduce the real cost of housing in both absolute prices for those buying, and rent for those who can't.

People live in nominal money. Being a greedy old boomer rentier, I get my £££s of divis and interest each year, all behind inflation, and I find the money works just fine in terms of paying for Tesco's and holidays and wine merchants. Restaurants do not decline my credit card because I am now a real terms pauper. Your point would be a better one if peoples' incomes rose seamlessly in line with inflation. Not everyone gets a rise, not everyone gets the average, not everyone gets it instantaneously.

People working for a living are getting pay rises on average of 7.8%

And rent is going up on average by 5.3%

That's on average a 2.5% fall in rent, versus wages.

Not everyone matches the average of course, but those are the averages.

The BBC report doesn't say anything about real prices, or the fact its a real terms fall, instead they blame the price rise on an exodus of landlords from the market. If landlords leaving the market leads to price rises below wage rises for one of the first times in decades lets hope the exodus continues.

BartholomewRoberts

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

The RAC wades in on the great debate of our times:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/are-drivers-who-pay-with-cash-when-parking-being-discriminated-against/

QTWAIN.

Discrimination is against protected classes that you can't control.

People who choose to pay extra by using an inferior, insecure and more expensive medium are responsible for paying for their own choices. If you make a choice, take responsibility for your own choices.

Quite. People should die for using cash, because all life has risks.

Have I got that right?

The theme of Mad Bart - Road Warrior - seems to be that everybody should be exactly like you, and if they choose or have to live slightly differently, THAT'S ON THEM. You have a car and a smartphone, so stuff the bus or cycle and cash money brigade. And renters: if they choose an inferior, insecure and more expensive form of tenure, they should take responsibility for the choice. And the homeless...

What the f**k are you talking about. No its not remotely what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is you make your choices, and live with your choices. Its up to everyone to choose what they want to do and nobody should try and compel others to be like them. So the exact opposite of saying everyone should be like me.

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

The RAC wades in on the great debate of our times:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/are-drivers-who-pay-with-cash-when-parking-being-discriminated-against/

QTWAIN.

Discrimination is against protected classes that you can't control.

People who choose to pay extra by using an inferior, insecure and more expensive medium are responsible for paying for their own choices. If you make a choice, take responsibility for your own choices.

My Mum is 75, and gets horribly frustrated by newfangled parking meters. Don’t underestimate the effect of these changes on groups like the elderly.

Foxy

I see that in Scotland the Junior doctors have overwhelmingly accepted a 12.4% pay deal, plus guarantee of at least CPI for the next 3 years.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/bma-scotland-junior-doctors-vote-to-accept-scottish-governments-pay-offer

I expect a similar offer in England would stop the strikes. Barclay needs to negotiate.

tlg86

Are the Tories advising Manchester United?

https://twitter.com/ManUnitedYouth/status/1691869277182160998

Nick
@ManUnitedYouth
Fully expect the club will have to backtrack on this anyway, but they’ll do so having made everyone fully aware what they were ok with. Excellent work

HYUFD

Foxy said:

I see that in Scotland the Junior doctors have overwhelmingly accepted a 12.4% pay deal, plus guarantee of at least CPI for the next 3 years.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/bma-scotland-junior-doctors-vote-to-accept-scottish-governments-pay-offer

I expect a similar offer in England would stop the strikes. Barclay needs to negotiate.

Absolutely not.

This government has shown fiscal discipline to get inflation down to just under 8% this week from over 11% last year. If the Scottish government wants to be fiscally irresponsible and award massively above inflation pay rises not tied to longer worker hours and improved productivity leading to an inflationary wage spiral in Scotland that is their basis, the UK government should have no part in it. The Scottish government can increase Scottish taxes to pay for it too.

If nurses, physios and porters and ambulance workers in England can accept a 5% pay deal when they earn much less than doctors and surgeons already, so can junior doctors!

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

I see that in Scotland the Junior doctors have overwhelmingly accepted a 12.4% pay deal, plus guarantee of at least CPI for the next 3 years.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/bma-scotland-junior-doctors-vote-to-accept-scottish-governments-pay-offer

I expect a similar offer in England would stop the strikes. Barclay needs to negotiate.

Absolutely not.

This government has shown fiscal discipline to get inflation down to just under 8% this week from over 11% last year. If the Scottish government wants to be fiscally irresponsible and award massively above inflation pay rises leading to an inflationary wage spiral in Scotland that is their basis, the UK government should have no part in it. The Scottish government can increase Scottish taxes to pay for it too.

If nurses can accept a 6% deal when they earn much less than doctors and surgeons already, so can junior doctors!

Well, looks like those waiting lists are just going to grow...

Scottish nurses got a better deal too. Edinburgh is a lot easier to move to than Sydney.

Carnyx

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

The RAC wades in on the great debate of our times:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/are-drivers-who-pay-with-cash-when-parking-being-discriminated-against/

QTWAIN.

Discrimination is against protected classes that you can't control.

People who choose to pay extra by using an inferior, insecure and more expensive medium are responsible for paying for their own choices. If you make a choice, take responsibility for your own choices.

My Mum is 75, and gets horribly frustrated by newfangled parking meters. Don’t underestimate the effect of these changes on groups like the elderly.

Quite. It's shocking to see the spite and sneering on PB when things such as this come up.