Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Two decades of Ipsos polling – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,126
edited October 2023 in General
imageTwo decades of Ipsos polling – politicalbetting.com

I like this chart because its starting date almost coincides with when PB was launched. Ipsos is just about the only pollster able to produce such an analysis because it has been operating in the UK since the 1970s.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    FIRST
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    Polling by themselves.
  • A steady decline but some room for swingback from their current position.
  • God bless Ipsos (and Mori), they also do the heavy lifting on the exit poll.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,297
    edited September 2023
    I reckon the Tories would be sub polling 20% if Boris Johnson was still in charge assuming no Truss interregnum.

    Lying about putting a known sexual predator in a position of authority was utterly corrosive and would have become worse if Johnson hadn't quit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    When did you go vegan?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    'My main worry is what happened at Uxbridge in the July by election when the Tories did far far better than anybody predicted and indeed came within a few hundred votes of holding the seat.'

    Um, they did hold the seat.

    Isn't going from a majority of 7,000 votes to a majority of 500 votes actually a good sign for Labour? I mean, that it was at all close suggests that seats with majorities under 10,000 could be in play, with enough tactical voting and such?
  • 148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2023
    …….


  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    FPT:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    Worth pointing out that the older generations who benefited from all those things also benefited from a highly favourable demographic structure. In short, the working population was a much bigger proportion of the overall population.
    We, along with much of the western world, are going through a demographic transition from an age-sex diagram shaped like a pyramid to one shaped like an exotic skyscraper with a twiddly bit on the top to, potentially, one shaped like the Wyrmberg (the upside down mountain from Terry Pratchett's first Discworld book). This is painfully, preposterously expensive, particularly when 60 years ago policy decisions like pensions were made on the assumption that the pyramid would continue indefinitely.
    You have to get out of the ponzi scheme at some point, but it is seldom pleasant to do so.

    So should I continue to work in my early 70s in order to mitigate what one might call an inverted pyramid of people, or should I give way to someone less than half my age so they can sustain me in idleness?
    Very good.

    Obviously if you can get away with it and can afford it, you give way to someone half your age.

    But for the good of the country, retirement ages have to increase.

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When my grandfather was born, life expectancy for men was 52 years; when I was born it was 72. If life expectancies have increased by 20 years, I don’t think I can feel embittered if I have to work into my 70s. I’m still better off in terms of the number of non-working years I get at the end of my life (and indeed in having more life in general). And while the inverted pyramid of people means you can’t fund your retirement with the pension ponzi scheme previous generations relied on, the fact that we are working for longer makes it MUCH easier to save for a pension.

    Basically, unless you would genuinely rather be dead, you are better off than previous generations.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    I reckon the Tories would be sub polling 20% if Boris Johnson was still in charge assuming no Truss interregnum.

    Lying about putting a known sexual predator in a position of authority was utterly corrosive and would have become worse if Johnson hadn't quit.

    We’ll never know, but I very much doubt it
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
    Sounds like you've got no-eye deer.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
    With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.

    Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    Cookie said:

    FPT:

    Cookie said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    Worth pointing out that the older generations who benefited from all those things also benefited from a highly favourable demographic structure. In short, the working population was a much bigger proportion of the overall population.
    We, along with much of the western world, are going through a demographic transition from an age-sex diagram shaped like a pyramid to one shaped like an exotic skyscraper with a twiddly bit on the top to, potentially, one shaped like the Wyrmberg (the upside down mountain from Terry Pratchett's first Discworld book). This is painfully, preposterously expensive, particularly when 60 years ago policy decisions like pensions were made on the assumption that the pyramid would continue indefinitely.
    You have to get out of the ponzi scheme at some point, but it is seldom pleasant to do so.

    So should I continue to work in my early 70s in order to mitigate what one might call an inverted pyramid of people, or should I give way to someone less than half my age so they can sustain me in idleness?
    Very good.

    Obviously if you can get away with it and can afford it, you give way to someone half your age.

    But for the good of the country, retirement ages have to increase.

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When my grandfather was born, life expectancy for men was 52 years; when I was born it was 72. If life expectancies have increased by 20 years, I don’t think I can feel embittered if I have to work into my 70s. I’m still better off in terms of the number of non-working years I get at the end of my life (and indeed in having more life in general). And while the inverted pyramid of people means you can’t fund your retirement with the pension ponzi scheme previous generations relied on, the fact that we are working for longer makes it MUCH easier to save for a pension.

    Basically, unless you would genuinely rather be dead, you are better off than previous generations.

    The original reason that Bismarck set the pension age for men to 65 was that the Lower Orders had a decent tendency to die around that age. Which meant that the spending on old age pensions was minor.

    Then the medical industry fucked that up, and suddenly you have hordes of people wanting to live the Middle Class Dream (19th Cent edition) for 30 years - a life of luxury and no work supported by investment in Consols.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,343
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
    Doe!
  • Don't give likes to those making deer puns. We shouldn't be fawning over them.
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610
  • 148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
    With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.

    Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
    More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,412
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
    Your field of puns shows no sign of being fallow.
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    Well I am shocked.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
    Sounds like you've got no-eye deer.
    Well, yes. And because it was dead it wasn't moving, so they were still no eye deers.

    And I think they'd cut the balls off the stag, so it was a still no fucking eye deer.
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    I think you overstate the importance of precarity.
    If the size of the labour pool increases, there is downward pressure on wages. That's not all there is to it, but that's 90% of it.
    Throughout British history, the times when those at the bottom of the pile have been worst off* have been when there has been a glut of labour; the times when they have been best off* has been when there has been a shortage.
    So a situation in which the lqbour of the world can come here and sell their labour will be bad news for those of us who currently sell our labour.

    *Relative to the rest of society.
  • 148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    So unemployed people who want your job will join a union with you to help you get a payrise?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    From Rishi Sunak's point of view, though, 34% would be a poll rating to die for.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Chris said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    From Rishi Sunak's point of view, though, 34% would be a poll rating to die for.
    Don't give the PCP any more ideas.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    No, that absolutely does not add up.
    Your counter argument should be that there is not a finite pool of jobs, and that new workers will lead to new jobs.

    I don't think this is true - or at least, to the extent that it is true it doesn't outweigh downward pressure in wages - and the empirical evidence from history would suggest it is not, unless we are in a position like the early USA with effectively limitless land and resources - but is at least plausible.
  • 148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    Have you not considered that there are so few pedestrians on many roads because of drivers' behaviour?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    Ye-es - can I ask if you have ever been unemployed? Because when you are, what you want is work. Being paid something - anything - is better than nothing.
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
  • Carnyx said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    Have you not considered that there are so few pedestrians on many roads because of drivers' behaviour?
    I think that you need to actually experience the roads in question which have rarely if ever had pedestrians
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    From Rishi Sunak's point of view, though, 34% would be a poll rating to die for.
    Don't give the PCP any more ideas.
    Surely the "pro-car" stance is already a large part of the Tory strategy?
  • 148grss said:

    'My main worry is what happened at Uxbridge in the July by election when the Tories did far far better than anybody predicted and indeed came within a few hundred votes of holding the seat.'

    Um, they did hold the seat.

    Isn't going from a majority of 7,000 votes to a majority of 500 votes actually a good sign for Labour? I mean, that it was at all close suggests that seats with majorities under 10,000 could be in play, with enough tactical voting and such?
    7% swing in Uxbridge.
  • Mike, the Tories DID hold Uxbridge!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
    With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.

    Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
    More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
    That works, and building private houses also works. (I'm an advocate of the-state-as-private-developer.) The tenure is relatively unimportant for the purposes of killing off unaffordability as a major issue. What matters is the numbers. Ifwe grow the population by 30% in 30 years but don't growthe housing stock by 30%, we will have an affordability problem.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    That question is designed to produce a particular result. Very poor.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,134
    We could do with some more constituency polls from Mid Beds, Rutherglen, Tamworth.
  • Andy_JS said:

    We could do with some more constituency polls from Mid Beds, Rutherglen, Tamworth.

    Maybe next week after the dust settles
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    If you could supply the postcode of one such road, we can all take a look on Google Streetview...
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    Ye-es - can I ask if you have ever been unemployed? Because when you are, what you want is work. Being paid something - anything - is better than nothing.
    Yes, I have been unemployed. And homeless. And part time employed. And full time employed. I like working, to a degree. But running a household is work. Keeping a garden is work. Painting the fence is work. Just because you aren’t labouring for a wage, doesn’t mean you won’t do things. And if you’re saying that the threat of starvation will make people scab - that’s what solidarity is for. Community action, pooling of resources, extending strike funds to others - these are all things that can be done in the meantime to help people live together before the point of concession from business.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Andy_JS said:

    We could do with some more constituency polls from Mid Beds, Rutherglen, Tamworth.

    Do you have a gut feeling about Mid Beds, Andy?
  • boulay said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
    Your field of puns shows no sign of being fallow.
    Doe!
  • ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    Muntjac or Giant Irish?
    I assumed it was a native deer. Maybe I shouldn't have taken it as red though.
    Doe!
    Three bad puns in a roe!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    No, it's a an expression of the the modern view of immigration and it's effect on infrastructure & jobs.
    With a very weird blind spot on housing affordability.

    Build more houses. Literally millions more houses.
    More people require more houses; yes, obviously. BUT. Those do not have to be privately built and owned houses. You can have state owned, high quality housing that is rented for under market price. Why do this? To create a standard of living threshold and a price for that in the market place. If we did what Vienna did and built high rises with access to green space and pools and gyms and rented them out dirt cheap instead of just building high rises and leave people to rot in them or sell of all our social housing stock, or define affordable housing as 80% of market value - people would have good options to choose over crappy flats owned by landlords.
    I made no comment on ownership or market mix, merely said that millions of new houses need to be built.
  • Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,226
    What is particularly interesting in that chart is how sustained a poll lead Ed Miliband's Labour had after Gordon Brown lost in 2010 and Cameron became PM, lasting until 2014 at least.

    If Sunak loses and PM Starmer fails to get a grip on the economy the new Conservative Leader may find it rather more fruitful in opposition, at least in polling terms, than Hague did after the 1997 landslide defeat when New Labour managed the economy relatively well
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    Labour isn't the only source of value. Innovations mean that some "work" can happen more or less automatically. The question of where the extra surplus from such labour-saving innovation goes, that's the key question of our time that often goes unaddressed.
    Automated labour is still labour - I didn’t say human labour is the only source of value; animal labour also creates value (for example). And if most work is automated and people need to work less - good. The outputs of that automated labour should be shared amongst the people and not hoarded by the so called owners of those automatons. That is why workers should own the means of production.
  • Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 686
    With a few hours to next kickoff, my first few predictions for this weekend (repeat from a few days ago).
    Weds ITA v URU. This could be an entertaining game as teams are effectively playing off for 3rd place in group. Italy by 15.

    Thurs FRA v NAM. If France decide to turn up this could be a record breaking score. But as against Uruguay I suspect that France wont try too hard and will win ‘only’ by 40.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,200
    Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.

    “Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”

    Someone pass me the sick bag .
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
    No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
  • Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.

    I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
  • Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    Labour isn't the only source of value. Innovations mean that some "work" can happen more or less automatically. The question of where the extra surplus from such labour-saving innovation goes, that's the key question of our time that often goes unaddressed.
    Automated labour is still labour - I didn’t say human labour is the only source of value; animal labour also creates value (for example). And if most work is automated and people need to work less - good. The outputs of that automated labour should be shared amongst the people and not hoarded by the so called owners of those automatons. That is why workers should own the means of production.
    So the profits from labour shouldn't automatically go to the person/device performing that labour, that's what you're saying, right?
    Marx wrote 500 pages to come to the realisation that this isn't what happens.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I predicted I'd get that response from you:
    "But you don't even live here" in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

    When you get challenged on the specifics, you always hide. Which means people will naturally doubt the generalities.

    You said there are many. It can't be that hard.
    You can doubt as much as you like, but to abolish 97% of 30mph limits across Wales has created this situation with the uproar we are experiencing

    Imagine Starmer abolished 97% of England's 30 mph zones and see just how many would be deemed unnecessary
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,594
    edited September 2023

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    Only the M4 is cyclist free, I think? I've cycled on a fair number of the A roads in mid-Wales where the limit is currently 60.

    It is a daft question.
  • nico679 said:

    Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.

    “Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”

    Someone pass me the sick bag .

    Ironic given that the story of the day is about the Government's inability to stick to long term decisions.

    As Ford's angry statement today said, "Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three."
  • Wes Streeting MP
    @wesstreeting
    ·
    1h
    Rishi Sunak is making Liz Truss look competent and Boris Johnson look principled.

    Extraordinary.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I predicted I'd get that response from you:
    "But you don't even live here" in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

    When you get challenged on the specifics, you always hide. Which means people will naturally doubt the generalities.

    You said there are many. It can't be that hard.
    You can doubt as much as you like, but to abolish 97% of 30mph limits across Wales has created this situation with the uproar we are experiencing

    Imagine Starmer abolished 97% of England's 30 mph zones and see just how many would be deemed unnecessary
    Uproar from the string-backed gloves brigade.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    Farooq said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    Labour isn't the only source of value. Innovations mean that some "work" can happen more or less automatically. The question of where the extra surplus from such labour-saving innovation goes, that's the key question of our time that often goes unaddressed.
    Automated labour is still labour - I didn’t say human labour is the only source of value; animal labour also creates value (for example). And if most work is automated and people need to work less - good. The outputs of that automated labour should be shared amongst the people and not hoarded by the so called owners of those automatons. That is why workers should own the means of production.
    So the profits from labour shouldn't automatically go to the person/device performing that labour, that's what you're saying, right?
    Let’s go back to the 2000 labourers example. If they all run the factory that they all work in together, democratically - what will they do? Is it in their interest to say “we should fire half the workforce and leave the other half to starve” or say “we can all work half as much and still make a living wage”? In the case of automation, if those 2000 workers own the automaton, what would make more sense to them? “We should make ourselves all unemployed and only allow one or two individuals benefit from the robot labour” or would they say “we all work as much as we want and benefit from the labour of the robot as much as we need”? You could say they should use their surplus labour to create surplus product to sell - but at some point surplus product is unnecessary. So why work more than you have to?
  • Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.

    I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
    We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
    No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
    So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys

    2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
  • nico679 said:

    Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.

    “Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”

    Someone pass me the sick bag .

    Wait, what?

    A week ago they told BMW they were sticking to 2030.

    Long term decisions?
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    Only the M4 is cyclist free, I think? I've cycled on a fair number of the A roads in mid-Wales where the limit is currently 60.

    It is a daft question.
    There's a stretch of the A55 in North Wales which also prohibits cyclists, horse-drawn vehicles, etc.
  • Meanwhile, from Sir Lindsay Hoyle:

    If he had the power, the Speaker would recall the house immediately – and he is writing to the prime minister today to express that view in the strongest of terms.

    This is a major policy shift, and it should have been announced when the house was sitting. Members with very different views on this issue have expressed their disquiet on the way this has been handled, especially as the Commons rose early last night, so there was plenty of time for this statement to be made.

    Instead, the unelected House of Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise this change in direction this afternoon, when it hears the government’s response to a private notice question on this issue.

    This is not the way to do business. Ministers are answerable to MPs – we do not have a presidential system here.

    The House of Commons is where laws are made, national debates are had – and where statements should be made.
  • Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Green MPs and car manufacturers against him: Caroline Lucas
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead."
    The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it.
    Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.

    It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    Pagan2 said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
    No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
    So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys

    2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
    Why build more doohickeys then are needed? If there is a glut of doohickeys then yes, the value of the doohickey goes down. But if the worker decides how many doohickies to make why would they make a surplus? Capitalists need surpluses to extract ever greater value from labour - but labour alone doesn’t need to do that.
  • Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.

    I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
    We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
    Ok. We’re getting closer. Slowly. Can you give us some street names? Or a grid reference for some of the roads where you think 20 is unwarranted? Or even a what3words to keep Leon happy?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,134

    Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Green MPs and car manufacturers against him: Caroline Lucas

    Both are elite opinion.
  • Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Green MPs and car manufacturers against him: Caroline Lucas

    *MP
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    Short term decisions for a hotter future
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    Only the M4 is cyclist free, I think? I've cycled on a fair number of the A roads in mid-Wales where the limit is currently 60.

    It is a daft question.
    There's a stretch of the A55 in North Wales which also prohibits cyclists, horse-drawn vehicles, etc.
    But presumably that will not be subject to a 20mph limit?!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736
    Andy_JS said:

    Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Green MPs and car manufacturers against him: Caroline Lucas

    Both are elite opinion.
    Has the competence of Tory leaders plummeted to such an extent that anyone who disagrees must be an "elitist" now?
  • Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.

    I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
    We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
    Ok. We’re getting closer. Slowly. Can you give us some street names? Or a grid reference for some of the roads where you think 20 is unwarranted? Or even a what3words to keep Leon happy?
    From no.score.here to twenties.not.plenty
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    148grss said:

    Pagan2 said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
    No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
    So your argument is this 1person does 40 hours labour and is paid at £x produces 1000 doohickeys

    2 people could do 20 hours each and produce 1000 doohickeys between them and both get paid £x. I wonder what that does to the price of doohickeys?
    Why build more doohickeys then are needed? If there is a glut of doohickeys then yes, the value of the doohickey goes down. But if the worker decides how many doohickies to make why would they make a surplus? Capitalists need surpluses to extract ever greater value from labour - but labour alone doesn’t need to do that.
    I didnt say there were surplus doohickeys....clue for you a company doesnt make more doohickeys than it could sell. You are evading the question here because you know damn well paying twice as much for the same labour is the issue here. If labour is a large part of the cost of a doohickey then the price of each doohickey goes up substantially
  • Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    Only the M4 is cyclist free, I think? I've cycled on a fair number of the A roads in mid-Wales where the limit is currently 60.

    It is a daft question.
    Also much of the A465 over the Heads of the Valleys. But that’s not 30 either, roadworks permitting.
  • Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Green MPs and car manufacturers against him: Caroline Lucas

    *MP
    I assumed she was throwing in the scottish msps into that.

  • Farooq said:

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    I asked you a couple of days ago for example of roads where you object to the speed limit. You declined, but you now have an opportunity to give examples of this (related?) category
    I suggest you come to Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and see for yourself

    Unless you are resident in the area the debate is pointless
    I visited Llandudno last year. And walked around the town.

    I repeat my request for an illustration of these pedestrian no-go zones.
    We are not talking about the town but all the roads in Colwyn Bay to Llandudno
    You mean like here - the main road from Colwyn Bay to Llandudno:

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3125996,-3.7652262,3a,75y,324.57h,80.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6yFPl6km37gq0bhwIdYLJg!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=6yFPl6km37gq0bhwIdYLJg&cb_client=search.revgeo_and_fetch.gps&w=96&h=64&yaw=48.43832&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

    I see footpaths and houses. The sort of place you get pedestrians. If this isn't where you are referring to, please put me straight.
  • Cookie said:

    To be fair to Big G, my first thought when I heard this proposal was "it's going to make getting to Llandudno a pain in the arse. I'll probably end up going to Formby or Lytham instead."
    The reality probably doesn't add up to that. There must be, what, about 4 miles of 30mph roads between the A55 and the beach at Llandudno? So at worst, what could take 8 minutes will take 12. An extra 4 minutes on an hour and a half's journey really us neither here nor there, even if it does feel longer when you're doing it.
    Similar driving around it. It won't make that much of a differencein journey times. But it will feel interminable.

    It won't save many lives, because the problems aren't the law abiding drivers who drive at 30, it's those who do 50 in a 30 zone. It's another example of "people aren't obeying the laws - let's make harsher ones" that some in tge political class are so fond of.

    Sorry but there is just a few hundred yards over the Orme and nowhere near 4 miles

    Indeed travel from Old Colwyn to Llandudno and that is the only short 30mph zone with much smaller 40mph, before it reduces to 20mph
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Andy_JS said:

    Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Green MPs and car manufacturers against him: Caroline Lucas

    Both are elite opinion.
    As opposed to the pig ignorant kind?
  • nico679 said:

    Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.

    “Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”

    Someone pass me the sick bag .

    Wait, what?

    A week ago they told BMW they were sticking to 2030.

    Long term decisions?
    Sunak's a joke.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,508

    ydoethur said:

    Sorry I've been away, been busy.

    I spent today trying to buy some venison.

    I was offered four halves of carcasses, but when I added it up it was just two deer.

    When did you go vegan?
    When he realised there was no meat in his puns.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720

    nico679 said:

    Oh God the lectern at no 10 has the latest slogan from the Tories , this apparently will appear at their conference.

    “Long-term decisions . For a brighter future .”

    Someone pass me the sick bag .

    Wait, what?

    A week ago they told BMW they were sticking to 2030.

    Long term decisions?
    I don't think they understand how climate change works. It's not necessarily going to get brighter (well it might actually, sunshine hours in the UK are increasing a little especially in winter months).
  • On thread.

    What's striking about the Ipsos chart is indeed the relentless downward trend in the Conservative vote share. The Conservatives under Sunak are even polling lower now (at 24%) than they were at the nadir of Truss's brief reign (26%). The general findings of most other pollsters is that the Conservatives bounced back a fair bit initially under Sunak although the bounce has since dissipated, such that the Conservative share has broadly flatlined since November. So Ipsos are standing out from the crowd.
  • Sir Lindsay Hoyle has called out Sunak for the snivelling little shit he is.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,594

    Talking of polls, one for Mr G:

    Do Welsh voters support or oppose the new 20mph speed limit on roads where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclists? (16-17 September)

    Support 46%
    Oppose 34%

    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1704480530308505610

    The caveat where cars mix with pedestrians and cyclist is not the roads that the complaints are coming from

    I expect most people support that poll question
    So where are all these 30-mph roads with no pedestrians or cyclists?
    You may be surprised but there are many
    Only the M4 is cyclist free, I think? I've cycled on a fair number of the A roads in mid-Wales where the limit is currently 60.

    It is a daft question.
    There's a stretch of the A55 in North Wales which also prohibits cyclists, horse-drawn vehicles, etc.
    OK, fair enough. I do recall such a section through the tunnels and under the Conwy now you mention it.

    I've definitely cycled on the A470 though, so that's 20mph all the way.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    As just reported on Sky, Hoyle is right to be furious about this Sunak announcement being outside of usual Parliamentary protocol.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Wes Streeting MP
    @wesstreeting
    ·
    1h
    Rishi Sunak is making Liz Truss look competent and Boris Johnson look principled.

    Extraordinary.

    Steady on Wes.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    ydoethur said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    darkage said:


    148grss said:

    TimS said:

    Here are the proposals:

    "NEW: I’ve seen the agenda for today’s Cabinet

    RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE

    -“Delay the off-gas-grid fossil fuel ban until 2035 and relax the requirement from 100% to 80% of households”
    -“Relax the gas boiler phase-out target in 2035”
    -“no new energy efficiency regulations on homes”
    -“Increase the Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant by 50% to £7500”
    -“Announce the the requirement for all vehicles to have significant zero emission capability in the period 2030-35 is to be removed”

    Bonfire of green measures…"

    https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1704446221820018822?s=20

    If you're in your early 30s, like myself, or younger - what do we really have to hope for? Why do I do my 9-5? Why should I care about saving a pension?

    I can't save to buy a house, I can't afford a family, I don't believe I will see my pension because either the pension age will be so high or the economy will collapse in such a way my pension will be pointless, and the country and world will see environmental ravages annually that used to be once in a lifetime.

    Why should my generation and those younger then us participate in a society that seems so gung ho in destroying any future for us?
    @148grss Feel free to ignore me but in my experience, this type of negative attitude in your 30s will ruin your life. I've got quite a few friends who think like this and a decade or so on they have just been left behind, they don't own property, don't get married/have long term relationships, no kids etc. They are going nowhere. By contrast I know people in their early 30's who already have children and own property despite having low wages (below minimum wage) and no parental support. I know lots of people in my own industry who are earning over £80k by their late 20's/early 30's, so same age as you. Also people who have just stuck at something and worked hard for 6/7 years, earning respectably, getting promotions, owning their own house etc. There is nearly always a way. It isn't particularly fair, like life itself, but beyond a point it just looks like a case of winners v losers.
    This isn't just the ramblings of a depressive (although I am one) - it is the economic data. Millennials are earning less than previous generations at the same age. Adult children living with parents is up almost 15% between 2011 and 2021. If you care about marriages (I don't, but conservatives claim to) - there's been a 10% drop in 25 - 29 age bracket over the same time. Some conservatives here also complain about the lowering birth rate, happening predominantly amongst younger adults. Why? Because we can't afford to. Rents are high and wages are stagnant. Cost of living is increasing.

    What, if anything, is improving? Healthcare isn't. Wages aren't. Environment - not so much. Any time younger people speak out they get told they're entitled and woke and should sit down and shut up whilst the older generations who benefited from government investment in university, housing, NHS, infrastructure, a social safety net all pull up the ladder behind them.
    This is an area where independent thinking people from left to right can agree.

    For me the Conservatives have always been the party of aspiration, that is the reason I supported them.

    Pulling up the ladder, saying STFU to concerns, tilting the playing field so that no houses are built and people are forced to rent for decades and so on and so forth goes against aspiration.

    If the Tories don't believe in aspiration, and you're not a self-centred early 1800s style individual who only cares about what they already have or might inherit rather than work for, then what purpose do Sunak's Tories provide?
    Our solutions just differ. Right wingers want to do neoliberalism max and unleash the market, despite the fact that that is what got us here, and left wingers want the kind of New Deal policies and social safety nets that actually worked. Like, I'm not against house building - but no private house should be built to be sold by a private developer, they should all be public housing to bring down the costs for everyone. I'm not against aspiration - but a baseline of living standards has to be met for people to be able to aspire and not just fight to survive. And that should be met by the whole of society - and those with the broadest shoulder should carry the heaviest load.
    Neoliberalism isn't what got us here.

    Illiberal planning restrictions and putting barriers up prevent housing construction from matching or better exceeding population growth is what got us here.

    Other countries have shown the solution. Liberalise planning, let people build whatever they want without asking society or neighbours for permission first just get going on building so long as you follow building codes and regulations.

    Do that and houses will be affordable and young generations will have the same opportunities their elders had.

    Of course it will also lead to massive negative equity and people's buy to let investments will turn out to be worthless. That's a lesser problem than people not being able to buy in the first place to live though.
    The neoliberal economic consensus demands that houses be commodified and therefore house prices must stay artificially high, because it was the only asset people could get at the time the slashing and burning of public infrastructure started. The reason no government can allow the housing market to go into negative equity is because that is the only increase in wealth most people have seen in the last 30 years. If that disappeared it would be clear that the stagnant wages of the last 30 years giving massive profits to corporations was hidden by the economic mirage that is the housing market.
    It is illiberalism that keeps prices high.

    Illiberalism means that you can't build a home without asking permission first, and you won't get permission for years or decades because people want to keep their asset prices high.

    Go to a liberal system, abolish the need to ask for permission, just let people get the bulldozers or whatever in on their own timescale with their neighbours not being asked first and prices would collapse.

    Which is why people who want artificially high prices are terrified of liberalism.
    So you want a further bonfire of regulations and allow the market to sort it out. That is the neoliberal model. The reason it wasn't applied to housing was precisely because it was the only asset that they were planning to leave people to give them wealth accumulation whilst they burnt down all the other pathways to that down. And because it is the only thing left standing, those who still believe in neoliberalism want to burn it down too.
    Are you a neoliberal when it comes to migration, or do you believe in controls?
    I mean, neoliberal immigration policy of porous borders is not about internationalism or benefiting humans from other countries - it's about allowing cheap labour to move more freely with the added bonus of a constant threat that the state might deport you to prevent you from unionising and asking for higher wages. Countries and borders are fake, I'm for the free movement of all peoples.
    That's gloriously incoherent.
    How so? If you only allow people to come here in a situation of precarity then they become a push down on wages, allowing a race to the bottom. If you allow people to come here but have the benefit of others in the labour pool, sure labour surplus increases, but there isn't downward pressure on wages. Neoliberalism only cares about what benefits capital - so cheap workforce that is precarious is good, actually.
    You don't think that the availability of hundreds of people willing to do your job for the same or less weakens your bargaining position?
    If they join the union there are more of you to strike, demand a 4 day week for the same amount of pay and to show solidarity with. More workers with full worker rights = more comrades.
    Unemployed workers find it quite hard to strike.
    Labour is the source of value, not capital. If there are "too many" labourers - then each of them can do less work individually and demand a living wage to do so. Say that 1000 peoples' worth of work needs doing and 2000 people are in the labour pool. What makes more sense - leaving half of them to starve, or having 2000 people do half the work for the same standard of living? I know which one I would choose as a worker.
    So anyone willing to work full-time would be your class enemy?
    No - but if we have more people than work needing doing, why create more work? If we can live only working for 2 days a week - why shouldn’t we? If someone wants to work 3 or 4 or 7 days a week there will be others who can’t or don’t want to work at all. That’s their choice. But people should be allowed to live without having to work if there isn’t work that needs doing,
    If I'm working 5 days a week, I want paying for all of that. I don't want to share it withsomeone who doesn't want to work at all. Thinking I will do so fundamentally misunderstands human nature.
    If what you're saying however is that it should be possible to work part time, then I agree.
This discussion has been closed.