I have never seen such intense lightning in my life. It’s been going for thirty minutes non stop - if I didn’t know better I would think it was the paparazzi outside my house as Russell Brand is coming out the front door to welcome the England women’s football team for a party.
Usually there is a good gap between it but constant - ban this Lightning XL.
Massive lightning strikes tonight across the Midi after Leon has disappointing culinary experience. That’s a powerful ally to have backing you up!
I just saw them flashing over the black Pyrenees! Intense
That almost certainly means that Trump wins. He won the last time with less of the vote and it wasn't as close as that. Americans are truly mad, absolutely bonkers.
Will US democracy survive another Trump presidency?
I think its highly doubtful. It barely survived a Trump defeat.
I don't think its because people are mad. They are just tired of 'progressive' government and its absurd extremes, so the pendulum swings back the other way. People unfortunately don't have a very objective view of the world because they live in echo chambers and see what they want to see. It is a very difficult question as to whether American democracy can survive it.
I think it's because Fox News lies to them. Control the media and you conto how people vote
And of course the American liberal media tells the truth always
The liberal media has tragically been dragged in to the gutter over the past 5 years, mostly over its reporting on covid but also over the 'woke' stuff. People just believe whatever they want.
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
"Whatever the truth in Brand’s case, many on the Left who knew his reputation perpetuated this dynamic for years while he was endorsing Labour. And his fans are still doing so now, in their insistence that the value of his political voice remains a mitigating factor against reports of his sexual wrongdoing. The same is true of his enemies, including the women who came forward. The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out. Everyone, in other words, subordinates the question of sexual misbehaviour to a political assessment of the accused. And perhaps it was ever thus, #MeToo or no #MeToo. In this case, the only takeaway from this ugly story is a warning to pretty young women. Be careful out there: for no one will care if you’re assaulted by a high-status sexual predator, except that predator’s political enemies."
Thank you for the link which I read with interest. I'm reading her stuff (well, watching her videopresentations) on an article about transhumanism which may one day actually appear (pull your finger out, @viewcode)
Why would you want that - surely you want England to go far so you can rant and rave and be a miserabalist as long as possible?
I want borthwick and co and the whole elite of the RFU gone
If Borthwick won the WC would you want him gone? But the RFU need to be disbanded on the same day the Conservative Party Central office.
I want England to spawn it to the Semis just for the outrage from the other home nations who will whine about our easy draw for ever instead of getting off their arses and winning it or even getting to a final - which they haven’t done.
I wonder if Drakeford is about to learn that you can only govern WITH consent.
I am receiving social media comments from my daughter and if they are anything to go by there is a lot of anger in Wales tonight
Comments include the first country hearse drivers have to go on speed awareness courses, Wrexham football ground is full for Wales first speed awareness course, letters to Starmer resigning from Labour, and lots of signs being defaced
It is early days yet but the reaction today is very negative
Unfortunately, unless Wales does something radical and elects politicians with functioning brains and an understanding of the diversity of Wales rather than an eye to the main chance and no knowledge of anything outside the Valleys, they will keep doing these things.
I expect that there will be many LA'S under intense pressure to review some of their decisions
Following Plaids successful amendment they do have the power to ameliorate the effects and of course the Welsh government are required to review the policy
I wonder if Drakeford is about to learn that you can only govern WITH consent.
I am receiving social media comments from my daughter and if they are anything to go by there is a lot of anger in Wales tonight
Comments include the first country hearse drivers have to go on speed awareness courses, Wrexham football ground is full for Wales first speed awareness course, letters to Starmer resigning from Labour, and lots of signs being defaced
It is early days yet but the reaction today is very negative
Unfortunately, unless Wales does something radical and elects politicians with functioning brains and an understanding of the diversity of Wales rather than an eye to the main chance and no knowledge of anything outside the Valleys, they will keep doing these things.
I expect that there will be many LA'S under intense pressure to review some of their decisions
Following Plaids successful amendment they do have the power to ameliorate the effects and of course the Welsh government are required to review the policy
Yep, they could amend it to this (that's 12mph):
I'm just surprised Drakeford hasn't proposed a man with a red flag walking in front.
For everyone except his mates on illegal motorbikes of course. They can ride how they like and it's the police's fault when they crash and kill themselves, apparently.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
He may be but, as the article says:
"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."
So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
I've always thought it rather sadly ironic that Khrushchev, the one Soviet leader to make a serious effort to improve the living standards of the Soviet people without shaking the whole edifice apart, is remembered chiefly in the Russian word for a slum.
Sure, they were shit, but they were the best available and quantity was more important than quality at the time. It wasn't his fault nobody was willing to replace them later.
You could of course say the same about our public building stock.
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
I've always thought it rather sadly ironic that Khrushchev, the one Soviet leader to make a serious effort to improve the living standards of the Soviet people without shaking the whole edifice apart, is remembered chiefly in the Russian word for a slum.
Sure, they were shit, but they were the best available and quantity was more important than quality at the time. It wasn't his fault nobody was willing to replace them later.
You could of course say the same about our public building stock.
The insane thing is that we're back in a position where quantity matters once more as our housing shortage is so chronic.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
He may be but, as the article says:
"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."
So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.
You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
A good point but you misunderstand me.
I wasn't saying they were better built. I was saying they were built en-masse in an organised manner as part of an overall plan by a workforce and planners far inferior to the UK's. Yet the UK cannot match it, throwing up developments here, there, and everywhere that are far too tall with flats that are far too small. Accidents waiting to happen.
This is an apartment building in Basingstoke, on a road called Alencon Link. It's 18 storeys tall. It's full of one-bedroom and studio (no bedroom) flats. Here is a flat in a similar building
It is far better fitted than the Soviet crap. But it has no kitchen nor bedroom. In fact it's only 27.7sq metres. That's a crucial number, because you can't get a High St mortgage on a flat if it's less than 30sq metres. You can't buy it. And given that its £140,000, you can't afford it anyway.
What happens in cases like this is it's bought by the wealthy and let to the poor. In the case of this particular building, (IIRC) it's known for a fatality where a immigrant prostitute jumped from/was thrown out of a window to her death.
"Whatever the truth in Brand’s case, many on the Left who knew his reputation perpetuated this dynamic for years while he was endorsing Labour. And his fans are still doing so now, in their insistence that the value of his political voice remains a mitigating factor against reports of his sexual wrongdoing. The same is true of his enemies, including the women who came forward. The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out. Everyone, in other words, subordinates the question of sexual misbehaviour to a political assessment of the accused. And perhaps it was ever thus, #MeToo or no #MeToo. In this case, the only takeaway from this ugly story is a warning to pretty young women. Be careful out there: for no one will care if you’re assaulted by a high-status sexual predator, except that predator’s political enemies."
This is daft. Brand has been pushing conspiracy theories outside the left-liberal mainstream for half a decade. As for perpetuating dynamics, it is very difficult to take action against a person when nobody is willing to publicise an allegation, likely rightly, in fact this would be called "cancel culture" otherwise.
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
A good point but you misunderstand me.
I wasn't saying they were better built. I was saying they were built en-masse in an organised manner as part of an overall plan by a workforce and planners far inferior to the UK's. Yet the UK cannot match it, throwing up developments here, there, and everywhere that are far too tall with flats that are far too small. Accidents waiting to happen.
This is an apartment building in Basingstoke, on a road called Alencon Link. It's 18 storeys tall. It's full of one-bedroom and studio (no bedroom) flats. Here is a flat in a similar building
It is far better fitted than the Soviet crap. But it has no kitchen nor bedroom. In fact it's only 27.7sq metres. That's a crucial number, because you can't get a High St mortgage on a flat if it's less than 30sq metres. You can't buy it. And given that its £140,000, you can't afford it anyway.
What happens in cases like this is it's bought by the wealthy and let to the poor. In the case of this particular building, (IIRC) it's known for a fatality where a immigrant prostitute jumped from/was thrown out of a window to her death.
That's what we're building. Aren't we proud?
Fucking banana republic.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
A good point but you misunderstand me.
I wasn't saying they were better built. I was saying they were built en-masse in an organised manner as part of an overall plan by a workforce and planners far inferior to the UK's. Yet the UK cannot match it, throwing up developments here, there, and everywhere that are far too tall with flats that are far too small. Accidents waiting to happen.
This is an apartment building in Basingstoke, on a road called Alencon Link. It's 18 storeys tall. It's full of one-bedroom and studio (no bedroom) flats. Here is a flat in a similar building
It is far better fitted than the Soviet crap. But it has no kitchen nor bedroom. In fact it's only 27.7sq metres. That's a crucial number, because you can't get a High St mortgage on a flat if it's less than 30sq metres. You can't buy it. And given that its £140,000, you can't afford it anyway.
What happens in cases like this is it's bought by the wealthy and let to the poor. In the case of this particular building, (IIRC) it's known for a fatality where a immigrant prostitute jumped from/was thrown out of a window to her death.
That's what we're building. Aren't we proud?
Fucking banana republic.
I assume this is the attraction of student flats too, which represent a huge proportion of Edinburgh's new builds. Smaller than a scandi prison cell.
Happily, the STL restrictions are about to come in here in Scotland which might flood the market with new long term lets/homes for sale. Bad news for my flat value, but if the Airbnb in my stairwell closes I'll be deeply grateful.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Even if net immigration dropped to zero overnight we'd still have a chronic housing shortage, as it already exists.
There is no solution that doesn't go through a massive amount of building.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
He may be but, as the article says:
"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."
So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.
You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?
Which is sad in itself and not a good look for the left (and the right would be the same in the same circumstances).
Hard to know with Brand. He is obviously sleazy and it is not hard to imagine that his type of 'persuasion' would raise serious questions. However, it does look as though his political beliefs have somewhat crept into this investigation.
Now we’re onto the tv companies and what they knew and Brand ! More utterly tedious coverage of the non-entity ! Please make it stop !
Maybe one day the news media will report on their own problematic individuals, how their behaviour was covered up / accepted, just as it appears to have been with Brand in light entertainment cycles.
There is a bit of a pattern though, Wusselly Brand on telly / radio for years, Westwood same, and list just keeps growing, everybody knew at very very best they were wrong'uns.
Now we’re onto the tv companies and what they knew and Brand ! More utterly tedious coverage of the non-entity ! Please make it stop !
It's pretty much ruined Twitter since the story broke.
Which is just as well because that US carpenter is becoming a little too keen to discuss his treehouses and whatnot. Several thousand miles and an ocean matter so I'm guessing that geography is not his strong point.
A discreet withdrawal from social media may be wise at this point .....
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
Steve Borthwick is the result of Dr Frankenstein’s trial run of turning a turnip into a live human. what a lovely chap. I hope England manage to win the WC so the tv companies in years to come have to include him as a pundit.
Is it any wonder parents of accused students are calling in lawyers when you have the vice-chancellor of one of the universities saying:
"“As expulsion is a penalty, parents of the accused often start to raise the stakes by hiring a lawyer. It is a power game, because usually the victim has no representation, and I think it is completely unacceptable and unfair.”
Not alleged victim but victim i.e. an automatic assumption that any complaint is true.
The whole article is like that, as though how dare those who are accused, or the parents, have the temerity to question what the accusers say. While universities are not courts of law, the consequences of their decisions have serious ramifications for those involved, especially if the accused is expelled and has to go through the rest of their lives explaining why they were kicked out of university.
We need to take a stance against this whole "the accuser is always right" mentality that has crept into our public life.
I don't know why anybody is shocked England are still just as boringly crap under Borthwick as Jones, as Borthwick was first team coach for Eddie Jones teams for loads of years.
Interesting that Big Loz is still doing the rugby telly given the misadventures that were revealed during a court case. Angus Deayton never worked again for similar.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
I was always taught that you should try and get people to absorb information in as many ways as possible as they learn in different ways. So when doing a presentation if you have a handout leave it to the end, so they hopefully have made notes of their own during it and absorb it more by writing it, give the audience some simple answers to provide out loud, on top of reading somethign off a screen, that kind of thing.
It's basically the only reason I evey write something down physically.
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
I remember at prep school the excitement of when we were given our first Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.
I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
My handwriting is incomprehensible and I have problems filling out forms. Source of embarrassment.
Agree on reading out loud - I book a room at work to do it.
Quite sincerely, I am pretty sceptical of that thesis.
The better point about the Brand saga is what it says about British culture in the pre-Brexit era that so many people now look back on with rose-tinted glasses.
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
My handwriting is incomprehensible and I have problems filling out forms. Source of embarrassment.
Agree on reading out loud - I book a room at work to do it.
Just use Word’s speaking function and stick your headphones in. It’s a daft computer voice but does the job
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
I remember at prep school the excitement of when we were given our first Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.
I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.
Robert Colvile @rcolvile · 1h I know for a fact that multiple reporters tried to stand up stories about Brand over the years. Ultimately, they couldn't get people to go on the record. Stories like this happen when the women are willing/persuaded to speak, not when someone in power decides it's time.
Is it any wonder parents of accused students are calling in lawyers when you have the vice-chancellor of one of the universities saying:
"“As expulsion is a penalty, parents of the accused often start to raise the stakes by hiring a lawyer. It is a power game, because usually the victim has no representation, and I think it is completely unacceptable and unfair.”
Not alleged victim but victim i.e. an automatic assumption that any complaint is true.
The whole article is like that, as though how dare those who are accused, or the parents, have the temerity to question what the accusers say. While universities are not courts of law, the consequences of their decisions have serious ramifications for those involved, especially if the accused is expelled and has to go through the rest of their lives explaining why they were kicked out of university.
We need to take a stance against this whole "the accuser is always right" mentality that has crept into our public life.
See the Title 9 comedy in the US.
A relative did so some pro bono work for the NAACP - a lot of the accused are young black men. Some of his favourites:
- a member of the “panel” judging the matter stating explicitly that all people brought before the panel are guilty. Therefore she would always convict. - telling people providing evidence on behalf on an accused student that “when he is found guilty, you will be convicted yourselves under Title 9. For the crime of giving evidence in behalf of a guilt person”
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
I remember at prep school the excitement of when we were given our first Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.
I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.
As a lefty, ink pens were the bane of my school life - some teachers insisted in them being used, then deducted marks for the (inevitable) smudges. I dislike fountain pens almost as much as dislike fish knives, which I find literally pointless.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.
I remember at prep school the excitement of when we were given our first Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.
I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.
As a lefty, ink pens were the bane of my school life - some teachers insisted in them being used, then deducted marks for the (inevitable) smudges. I dislike fountain pens almost as much as dislike fish knives, which I find literally pointless.
That’s why I loved Schaefer pens: they worked for a leftie. Schaefer’s had a big nib that bent to suit your writing angle. I can’t write with biros and am buggered of I have to write a last minute birthday card (always the case) if that’s the only pen available.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.
The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.
Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…
I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).
None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.
WTF?
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
A good point but you misunderstand me.
I wasn't saying they were better built. I was saying they were built en-masse in an organised manner as part of an overall plan by a workforce and planners far inferior to the UK's. Yet the UK cannot match it, throwing up developments here, there, and everywhere that are far too tall with flats that are far too small. Accidents waiting to happen.
This is an apartment building in Basingstoke, on a road called Alencon Link. It's 18 storeys tall. It's full of one-bedroom and studio (no bedroom) flats. Here is a flat in a similar building
It is far better fitted than the Soviet crap. But it has no kitchen nor bedroom. In fact it's only 27.7sq metres. That's a crucial number, because you can't get a High St mortgage on a flat if it's less than 30sq metres. You can't buy it. And given that its £140,000, you can't afford it anyway.
What happens in cases like this is it's bought by the wealthy and let to the poor. In the case of this particular building, (IIRC) it's known for a fatality where a immigrant prostitute jumped from/was thrown out of a window to her death.
That's what we're building. Aren't we proud?
Fucking banana republic.
I assume this is the attraction of student flats too, which represent a huge proportion of Edinburgh's new builds. Smaller than a scandi prison cell.
Happily, the STL restrictions are about to come in here in Scotland which might flood the market with new long term lets/homes for sale. Bad news for my flat value, but if the Airbnb in my stairwell closes I'll be deeply grateful.
That wont change much - all that is doing is rearranging the deckchairs and changing the labels on them.
Chase AirBnB out, and you'll find blocks of "holiday flats" replacing them. You can keep going, until the tourists have been chased out, I suppose. Is that what you want.?
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
He may be but, as the article says:
"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."
So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.
You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?
Which is sad in itself and not a good look for the left (and the right would be the same in the same circumstances).
Hard to know with Brand. He is obviously sleazy and it is not hard to imagine that his type of 'persuasion' would raise serious questions. However, it does look as though his political beliefs have somewhat crept into this investigation.
I would imagine that the enablers and defenders of his behaviour withdrew their support. We are already hearing from multiple sources that his behaviour was known and even allowed for. No would report it.
I have never seen such intense lightning in my life. It’s been going for thirty minutes non stop - if I didn’t know better I would think it was the paparazzi outside my house as Russell Brand is coming out the front door to welcome the England women’s football team for a party.
Usually there is a good gap between it but constant - ban this Lightning XL.
There was very slow-moving. intense lighting down around the south Devon coast last night. Started at midnight, was still going at 3.00 am.
Felt like the papparazzi had located Russell Brand in my garden.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That's a good idea, but politically a bit challenging!
I was just going to go for council tax reform - you get a discount based on the number of people in your household, particularly if you have kids.
Both me and my girlfriend got one for living alone, which is a bit silly. Should be inverted.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
He may be but, as the article says:
"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."
So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.
You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?
Which is sad in itself and not a good look for the left (and the right would be the same in the same circumstances).
Hard to know with Brand. He is obviously sleazy and it is not hard to imagine that his type of 'persuasion' would raise serious questions. However, it does look as though his political beliefs have somewhat crept into this investigation.
I would imagine that the enablers and defenders of his behaviour withdrew their support. We are already hearing from multiple sources that his behaviour was known and even allowed for. No would report it.
He seems to have gone from drugs / alcohol to sex to conspiracy theory addiction....
I do find it quite funny that evidence of him going right wing is being anti-big pharma / anti-globalist. I remember not that long ago when that used to be common left wing trope.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
Ha.
The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.
Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
Your right to do nothing imposes a cost on the community - by reducing the availability of housing.
The necessity of the limitation of personal rights, to the benefit of society as a whole is the whole reason we don't live in anarchist/Ayn Rand heaven. Or is it hell?
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
Ha.
The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.
Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?
You're probably right about tower blocks. I think a traditional tenement is the optimal scale. Four floors, 12 or 16 flats.
You're simply wrong about nimbyism in urban areas, mainly because tenants are desperate for rents to fall.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
Your right to do nothing imposes a cost on the community - by reducing the availability of housing.
The necessity of the limitation of personal rights, to the benefit of society as a whole is the whole reason we don't live in anarchist/Ayn Rand heaven. Or is it hell?
Making someone pay for the externalities associated with their *action* is fine. Not charging them for *inaction*.
You are upending the relationship between the state and the individual
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
Just tax land and leave it at that.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
That’s a take or pay contract.
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
Your right to do nothing imposes a cost on the community - by reducing the availability of housing.
The necessity of the limitation of personal rights, to the benefit of society as a whole is the whole reason we don't live in anarchist/Ayn Rand heaven. Or is it hell?
Making someone pay for the externalities associated with their *action* is fine. Not charging them for *inaction*.
You are upending the relationship between the state and the individual
Inaction is an action. In many countries and societies, it is considered perfectly sensible, that if an individual refuses to do anything with a piece of land that is of value to the community, it can be compulsorily purchased and put to use.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
Ha.
The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.
Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?
One of the things that really needs sorting in planning is the lack of the missing middle. We can do low density detached sprawl (which means that the shops, schools, services and so on gave to be drive-to, because there aren't enough people within walking distance), we can do tower blocks (which have their own problems). But we struggle to build the mid density stuff. Dignified terraced townhouses, four storey mansion blocks. That sort of thing.
Even if net migration were squeezed to zero (and I doubt the UK would enjoy that), we'd still have changing family patterns, shifting geography and (please) rising living standards. We'd still need lots of new homes.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
Ha.
The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.
Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?
You're probably right about tower blocks. I think a traditional tenement is the optimal scale. Four floors, 12 or 16 flats.
You're simply wrong about nimbyism in urban areas, mainly because tenants are desperate for rents to fall.
The maximum height of a block of flats should be the number of stairs an old person with sticks can climb up, and six people can carry a coffin down. Anything taller needs a lift, and lifts are expensive. Ensure flats on the ground floor are wheelchair friendly.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
Ha.
The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.
Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?
One of the things that really needs sorting in planning is the lack of the missing middle. We can do low density detached sprawl (which means that the shops, schools, services and so on gave to be drive-to, because there aren't enough people within walking distance), we can do tower blocks (which have their own problems). But we struggle to build the mid density stuff. Dignified terraced townhouses, four storey mansion blocks. That sort of thing.
Even if net migration were squeezed to zero (and I doubt the UK would enjoy that), we'd still have changing family patterns, shifting geography and (please) rising living standards. We'd still need lots of new homes.
We need multiple new cities, just for the people we have. Even if the population went perfectly steady state tomorrow.
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
"Whatever the truth in Brand’s case, many on the Left who knew his reputation perpetuated this dynamic for years while he was endorsing Labour. And his fans are still doing so now, in their insistence that the value of his political voice remains a mitigating factor against reports of his sexual wrongdoing. The same is true of his enemies, including the women who came forward. The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out. Everyone, in other words, subordinates the question of sexual misbehaviour to a political assessment of the accused. And perhaps it was ever thus, #MeToo or no #MeToo. In this case, the only takeaway from this ugly story is a warning to pretty young women. Be careful out there: for no one will care if you’re assaulted by a high-status sexual predator, except that predator’s political enemies."
"Everyone" ? As Sir N s said earlier, horseshit.
To reach a sweeping conclusion from the thinnest of evidence is hardly the mark of 'one of Britain's best writers'.
A deeply unpleasant piece of writing, which subordinates the question of whether women were raped and assaulted to the making of a tendentious political point.
The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )
Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.
It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.
Nope.
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
Parks!
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.
In London, they are building tower blocks in the angles between major roads, railways and next to roundabouts.
Unless you move Heathrow to an island or build on the parks, where is this building going to take place?
George Monbiot @GeorgeMonbiot · 14h The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
Pious leftwingery is boring and online influencers are, first and foremost, entertainers.
Alwyn Turner @AlwynTurner · 9h In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.
Comments
"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"
https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/
If he is guilty of sexual assault, the motivations of his accusers in reporting it are irrelevant and his defenders are wrong.
If he isn't, his accusers are not right.
You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?
If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.
If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.
The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.
He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.
"Whatever the truth in Brand’s case, many on the Left who knew his reputation perpetuated this dynamic for years while he was endorsing Labour. And his fans are still doing so now, in their insistence that the value of his political voice remains a mitigating factor against reports of his sexual wrongdoing.
The same is true of his enemies, including the women who came forward. The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out.
Everyone, in other words, subordinates the question of sexual misbehaviour to a political assessment of the accused. And perhaps it was ever thus, #MeToo or no #MeToo. In this case, the only takeaway from this ugly story is a warning to pretty young women. Be careful out there: for no one will care if you’re assaulted by a high-status sexual predator, except that predator’s political enemies."
I want England to spawn it to the Semis just for the outrage from the other home nations who will whine about our easy draw for ever instead of getting off their arses and winning it or even getting to a final - which they haven’t done.
For everyone except his mates on illegal motorbikes of course. They can ride how they like and it's the police's fault when they crash and kill themselves, apparently.
"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."
So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.
Sure, they were shit, but they were the best available and quantity was more important than quality at the time. It wasn't his fault nobody was willing to replace them later.
You could of course say the same about our public building stock.
Completely unnecessary failure.
I wasn't saying they were better built. I was saying they were built en-masse in an organised manner as part of an overall plan by a workforce and planners far inferior to the UK's. Yet the UK cannot match it, throwing up developments here, there, and everywhere that are far too tall with flats that are far too small. Accidents waiting to happen.
This is an apartment building in Basingstoke, on a road called Alencon Link. It's 18 storeys tall. It's full of one-bedroom and studio (no bedroom) flats. Here is a flat in a similar building
- https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132899141
It is far better fitted than the Soviet crap. But it has no kitchen nor bedroom. In fact it's only 27.7sq metres. That's a crucial number, because you can't get a High St mortgage on a flat if it's less than 30sq metres. You can't buy it. And given that its £140,000, you can't afford it anyway.What happens in cases like this is it's bought by the wealthy and let to the poor. In the case of this particular building, (IIRC) it's known for a fatality where a immigrant prostitute jumped from/was thrown out of a window to her death.
That's what we're building. Aren't we proud?
Fucking banana republic.
Both Brand’s critics and his fans have forgotten how important doubt is to civilisation
Brendan O'Neill"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/09/17/russell-brand-and-the-crisis-of-scepticism/
If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.
We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.
Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.
Happily, the STL restrictions are about to come in here in Scotland which might flood the market with new long term lets/homes for sale. Bad news for my flat value, but if the Airbnb in my stairwell closes I'll be deeply grateful.
There is no solution that doesn't go through a massive amount of building.
Research on pens and paper highlights their benefits"
https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood
There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.
Hard to know with Brand. He is obviously sleazy and it is not hard to imagine that his type of 'persuasion' would raise serious questions. However, it does look as though his political beliefs have somewhat crept into this investigation.
There is a bit of a pattern though, Wusselly Brand on telly / radio for years, Westwood same, and list just keeps growing, everybody knew at very very best they were wrong'uns.
Which is just as well because that US carpenter is becoming a little too keen to discuss his treehouses and whatnot. Several thousand miles and an ocean matter so I'm guessing that geography is not his strong point.
A discreet withdrawal from social media may be wise at this point .....
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/17/its-a-power-game-students-accused-in-university-hearings-call-in-lawyers
Is it any wonder parents of accused students are calling in lawyers when you have the vice-chancellor of one of the universities saying:
"“As expulsion is a penalty, parents of the accused often start to raise the stakes by hiring a lawyer. It is a power game, because usually the victim has no representation, and I think it is completely unacceptable and unfair.”
Not alleged victim but victim i.e. an automatic assumption that any complaint is true.
The whole article is like that, as though how dare those who are accused, or the parents, have the temerity to question what the accusers say. While universities are not courts of law, the consequences of their decisions have serious ramifications for those involved, especially if the accused is expelled and has to go through the rest of their lives explaining why they were kicked out of university.
We need to take a stance against this whole "the accuser is always right" mentality that has crept into our public life.
It's basically the only reason I evey write something down physically.
Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.
I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.
Agree on reading out loud - I book a room at work to do it.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/235196503839
@rcolvile
·
1h
I know for a fact that multiple reporters tried to stand up stories about Brand over the years. Ultimately, they couldn't get people to go on the record. Stories like this happen when the women are willing/persuaded to speak, not when someone in power decides it's time.
A relative did so some pro bono work for the NAACP - a lot of the accused are young black men. Some of his favourites:
- a member of the “panel” judging the matter stating explicitly that all people brought before the panel are guilty. Therefore she would always convict.
- telling people providing evidence on behalf on an accused student that “when he is found guilty, you will be convicted yourselves under Title 9. For the crime of giving evidence in behalf of a guilt person”
We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.
When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.
They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.
The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.
Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?
The window tax was more sensible!
So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.
A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would attract the same land tax if they use the same land.
Chase AirBnB out, and you'll find blocks of "holiday flats" replacing them. You can keep going, until the tourists have been chased out, I suppose. Is that what you want.?
Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.
Felt like the papparazzi had located Russell Brand in my garden.
Lightning has passed just to the east tonight.
Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.
My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.
I was just going to go for council tax reform - you get a discount based on the number of people in your household, particularly if you have kids.
Both me and my girlfriend got one for living alone, which is a bit silly. Should be inverted.
I do find it quite funny that evidence of him going right wing is being anti-big pharma / anti-globalist. I remember not that long ago when that used to be common left wing trope.
The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.
This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.
Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.
Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.
The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.
Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?
And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.
Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)
The necessity of the limitation of personal rights, to the benefit of society as a whole is the whole reason we don't live in anarchist/Ayn Rand heaven. Or is it hell?
You're simply wrong about nimbyism in urban areas, mainly because tenants are desperate for rents to fall.
Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.
We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.
Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.
Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....
You are upending the relationship between the state and the individual
Even if net migration were squeezed to zero (and I doubt the UK would enjoy that), we'd still have changing family patterns, shifting geography and (please) rising living standards. We'd still need lots of new homes.
George Monbiot
@GeorgeMonbiot
·
14h
The question I've never been able to resolve is why far right conspiracy fictions seem, for so many online influencers, to be the key to massive audiences. What is it about this nonsense that attracts so many people?
As Sir N s said earlier, horseshit.
To reach a sweeping conclusion from the thinnest of evidence is hardly the mark of 'one of Britain's best writers'.
A deeply unpleasant piece of writing, which subordinates the question of whether women were raped and assaulted to the making of a tendentious political point.
Unless you move Heathrow to an island or build on the parks, where is this building going to take place?
@AlwynTurner
·
9h
In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.