John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 1h Heseltine ended with a rousing call: “Have faith in the Tory party. When we come back, the Tory party will be led by someone who knows that power lies in the centre ground”
Jack Surfleet @jacksurfleet · 32m Friday's FINANCIAL TIMES UK EDITION: OpenAI in talks with Ive and and SoftBank to design ChatGPT creator's first device #tomorrowspaperstoday
When they combine GPT with a humanoid robot we’re into scary pant shitting territory. Technically feasible already.
An intelligent agent can do a lot more with cryptocurrency and an internet connection than it can with its own set of legs. Specifically it can replicate itself, and employ humans (who already have legs) anywhere in the world.
I have no idea what that's about - but I do wish our politicians had nails that fabulous. I'd even consider voting for Rishi if he had that much shellac.
The Republicans are trying to attack Biden by going after his son’s misdeeds and pretending they have evidence proving Joe was in on it. (They do not.) So, the Democrat with good nails was pointing out all the indictments against Trump.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency.
Home ownership isn't high enough anyway. Its lower across the board than it was decades ago everywhere.
One third of Warringtonians being denied their own home is not remotely good enough in my view. A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
Housing should be built everywhere, for as much as people are prepared to pay for it.
The only reason more homes aren't being built is our broken planning system, not the market. Liberalise it, let the market sort it out.
Here where we have more space, there's thankfully more YIMBYism than there is elsewhere.
I still can't believe they didn't join HS1 and HS2 up at St Pancras so that you could get on a train in Manchester and go all the way through to Paris or Amsterdam, just in order not to inconvenience the likes of Leon in Camden Town.
They should make a little mini-train that can adjust its gauge and detach from the main train like the Akita Shinkansen. Then it can do the last part on the Elizabeth Line and go from Birmingham all the way across London to Stratford, and connect to Paris and Brussels there like God intended.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
I don't think it's a surprise that densely populated parts of the UK tend to have the highest GVA per capita and the best access to public services.
It's also by the far the cheapest way way to provide housing, with less land needed and serious levels of YIMBYism in areas with lots of renters.
That's if you're serious about productivity growth and housing supply, rather than a pathological need to concrete over the country.
If you're serious about housing supply, you have no problems with concrete.
Houses are absolutely flying up where I live, its absolutely fantastic. If it were replicated around the country, there'd be no housing crisis.
And if you remove the capital city distortion effect from GVA figures, then no its not correct.
Nonsense
Manchester and Brum massively under perform their peer second tier cities across Europe.
Barcelona, Milan, Lyon, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and a shed load more non capital cities right across Europe are far stronger economically than our second tier cities.
No one is saying there cannot be houses and people can choose to live in them, what they are saying is there needs to be an alternative that you oppose for some reason of heavily populated areas driving growth in the knowledge economy going forwards.
Reading is wealthy, Reading is wealthy because here is a huge population with a huge economy very well connected to Reading.
Blackburn could be wealthy if Manchester was more economically successful and Blackburn was much better connected to Manchester.
But we have neither.
Not the infrastructure nor population in Manchester to drive that economic growth, then we do not have the infrastructure to connect to Blackburn to spread that wealth.
But its not true either. They're not far stronger per capita.
We absolutely should improve our infrastructure, no questions about that, but we are not some third world impoverished area.
These data are a decade old, but I don't think the big picture has changed;
City centres seem to be productive in a way business parks aren't; people meet more and can switch jobs more easily. So we come back to the question - how much does Britain want to be rich. How much does it really really want it?
Britain gave up wanting to be rich years ago. Certainly by 2016. Britain just wants a comfortable retirement with an M&S ready meal and an Inspector Morse boxset.
I don't think it's a surprise that densely populated parts of the UK tend to have the highest GVA per capita and the best access to public services.
It's also by the far the cheapest way way to provide housing, with less land needed and serious levels of YIMBYism in areas with lots of renters.
That's if you're serious about productivity growth and housing supply, rather than a pathological need to concrete over the country.
If you're serious about housing supply, you have no problems with concrete.
Houses are absolutely flying up where I live, its absolutely fantastic. If it were replicated around the country, there'd be no housing crisis.
And if you remove the capital city distortion effect from GVA figures, then no its not correct.
Nonsense
Manchester and Brum massively under perform their peer second tier cities across Europe.
Barcelona, Milan, Lyon, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and a shed load more non capital cities right across Europe are far stronger economically than our second tier cities.
No one is saying there cannot be houses and people can choose to live in them, what they are saying is there needs to be an alternative that you oppose for some reason of heavily populated areas driving growth in the knowledge economy going forwards.
Reading is wealthy, Reading is wealthy because here is a huge population with a huge economy very well connected to Reading.
Blackburn could be wealthy if Manchester was more economically successful and Blackburn was much better connected to Manchester.
But we have neither.
Not the infrastructure nor population in Manchester to drive that economic growth, then we do not have the infrastructure to connect to Blackburn to spread that wealth.
But its not true either. They're not far stronger per capita.
We absolutely should improve our infrastructure, no questions about that, but we are not some third world impoverished area.
These data are a decade old, but I don't think the big picture has changed;
City centres seem to be productive in a way business parks aren't; people meet more and can switch jobs more easily. So we come back to the question - how much does Britain want to be rich. How much does it really really want it?
Britain gave up wanting to be rich years ago. Certainly by 2016. Britain just wants a comfortable retirement with an M&S ready meal and an Inspector Morse boxset.
Sainsbury’s “Taste the Difference” and Midsomer Murders, surely?
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
I must have missed that bit.
Which poster proposed we boost people renting in cities? The argument is that, for various reasons, Britain is missing out on the agglomerative benefits that ought to be generated by the North.
I don't think it's a surprise that densely populated parts of the UK tend to have the highest GVA per capita and the best access to public services.
It's also by the far the cheapest way way to provide housing, with less land needed and serious levels of YIMBYism in areas with lots of renters.
That's if you're serious about productivity growth and housing supply, rather than a pathological need to concrete over the country.
If you're serious about housing supply, you have no problems with concrete.
Houses are absolutely flying up where I live, its absolutely fantastic. If it were replicated around the country, there'd be no housing crisis.
And if you remove the capital city distortion effect from GVA figures, then no its not correct.
Nonsense
Manchester and Brum massively under perform their peer second tier cities across Europe.
Barcelona, Milan, Lyon, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and a shed load more non capital cities right across Europe are far stronger economically than our second tier cities.
No one is saying there cannot be houses and people can choose to live in them, what they are saying is there needs to be an alternative that you oppose for some reason of heavily populated areas driving growth in the knowledge economy going forwards.
Reading is wealthy, Reading is wealthy because here is a huge population with a huge economy very well connected to Reading.
Blackburn could be wealthy if Manchester was more economically successful and Blackburn was much better connected to Manchester.
But we have neither.
Not the infrastructure nor population in Manchester to drive that economic growth, then we do not have the infrastructure to connect to Blackburn to spread that wealth.
But its not true either. They're not far stronger per capita.
We absolutely should improve our infrastructure, no questions about that, but we are not some third world impoverished area.
These data are a decade old, but I don't think the big picture has changed;
City centres seem to be productive in a way business parks aren't; people meet more and can switch jobs more easily. So we come back to the question - how much does Britain want to be rich. How much does it really really want it?
Britain gave up wanting to be rich years ago. Certainly by 2016. Britain just wants a comfortable retirement with an M&S ready meal and an Inspector Morse boxset.
Sadly there is a degree of truth to that. UK values safety over freedom. ☹️
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
No one suggested that.
High demand = high rents = inability to save High demand = high prices = large deposit
Supply in these areas will help home ownership. Alternatives include hitting short-term lets as hard as possible, which is already having a positive effect in Edinburgh.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
By this principle, London and Switzerland are desperately unsuccessful areas, while Northern Ireland and Romania are successful.
I don't think it's a surprise that densely populated parts of the UK tend to have the highest GVA per capita and the best access to public services.
It's also by the far the cheapest way way to provide housing, with less land needed and serious levels of YIMBYism in areas with lots of renters.
That's if you're serious about productivity growth and housing supply, rather than a pathological need to concrete over the country.
If you're serious about housing supply, you have no problems with concrete.
Houses are absolutely flying up where I live, its absolutely fantastic. If it were replicated around the country, there'd be no housing crisis.
And if you remove the capital city distortion effect from GVA figures, then no its not correct.
Nonsense
Manchester and Brum massively under perform their peer second tier cities across Europe.
Barcelona, Milan, Lyon, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and a shed load more non capital cities right across Europe are far stronger economically than our second tier cities.
No one is saying there cannot be houses and people can choose to live in them, what they are saying is there needs to be an alternative that you oppose for some reason of heavily populated areas driving growth in the knowledge economy going forwards.
Reading is wealthy, Reading is wealthy because here is a huge population with a huge economy very well connected to Reading.
Blackburn could be wealthy if Manchester was more economically successful and Blackburn was much better connected to Manchester.
But we have neither.
Not the infrastructure nor population in Manchester to drive that economic growth, then we do not have the infrastructure to connect to Blackburn to spread that wealth.
But its not true either. They're not far stronger per capita.
We absolutely should improve our infrastructure, no questions about that, but we are not some third world impoverished area.
These data are a decade old, but I don't think the big picture has changed;
City centres seem to be productive in a way business parks aren't; people meet more and can switch jobs more easily. So we come back to the question - how much does Britain want to be rich. How much does it really really want it?
Britain gave up wanting to be rich years ago. Certainly by 2016. Britain just wants a comfortable retirement with an M&S ready meal and an Inspector Morse boxset.
Sadly there is a degree of truth to that. UK values safety over freedom. ☹️
That’s a different, though perhaps related, condition. But yes, there is a dispiriting suburban nanny-statism that characterises much of British culture.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
I must have missed that bit.
Which poster proposed we boost people renting in cities? The argument is that, for various reasons, Britain is missing out on the agglomerative benefits that ought to be generated by the North.
Eabhal and others were proposing we cram more people into the already overcrowded and failing cities where there's no space and home ownership rates are already catastrophically lower.
Britain is not missing out on it though, but we certainly could and should boost infrastructure, on that we can agree.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
No one suggested that.
High demand = high rents = inability to save High demand = high prices = large deposit
Supply in these areas will help home ownership. Alternatives include hitting short-term lets as hard as possible, which is already having a positive effect in Edinburgh.
(To my personal detriment)
It's really telling that you associate living in a flat with renting and poverty.
There are plenty of people who live in detached houses who are suffering too.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
No one suggested that.
High demand = high rents = inability to save High demand = high prices = large deposit
Supply in these areas will help home ownership. Alternatives include hitting short-term lets as hard as possible, which is already having a positive effect in Edinburgh.
(To my personal detriment)
It's really telling that you associate living in a flat with renting and poverty.
There are plenty of people who live in detached houses who are suffering too.
I live in a rented flat on the UWS of Manhattan. I’m there right now.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
By this principle, London and Switzerland are desperately unsuccessful areas, while Northern Ireland and Romania are successful.
Yes, London is desperately unsuccessful.
A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
London has the lowest rate of home ownership, 46.8%, that's a dismal failure.
If you're a part of the minority in London that can afford you're home then its great of course, but for the majority who have astronomical rents, yes it can be very bad to be piled high.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
I must have missed that bit.
Which poster proposed we boost people renting in cities? The argument is that, for various reasons, Britain is missing out on the agglomerative benefits that ought to be generated by the North.
Eabhal and others were proposing we cram more people into the already overcrowded and failing cities where there's no space and home ownership rates are already catastrophically lower.
Britain is not missing out on it though, but we certainly could and should boost infrastructure, on that we can agree.
I think there’s pretty universal agreement that Britain is indeed missing out on agglomerative effects.
At least for anyone who’s actually looked into the issue. I agree that it doesn’t necessarily follow that UK cities ought to densify, the key issue is infrastructure.
It is true though the denser cities tend to have better infrastructure so there’s at least a secondary relationship.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
I don't insist on any of that.
I'm pro-trees. Building more towns and roads and houses equals more trees not fewer. There's thousands of trees on the just the one new road I'm off that have been planted to go with our new area that wouldn't be here if it hadn't been developed. There's more trees than houses on the estate and the main road is tree lined all the way.
I'm also pro-cycling. I've taught my kids to ride, one currently needs stabilisers, and I ride myself. I'm pro-cycling paths and support investing in new roads to be able to build more cycle paths.
As for flats, I don't like them, but I am pro those being constructed for those who do want them. Pro-choice.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
IIUC Tokyo does a thing where the (already pretty lenient) height restrictions are eased if you set the building back from the road and put some garden space in front.
I'm not saying I like this: Like Bart I think you should just let people choose if they want to use their space for gardens or homes and not try to centrally plan it. But if you had a policy goal of having lots of green space in the city around where people live but also increasing density, it's possible to do it.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Of course it survives contact with reality. Nobody should be forced into anything against their will.
If everybody chose not to live in a flat in London then flats in London would become vacant and their prices would collapse until a new equilibrium and people chose to live in them, or the land could be redeveloped.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Barty doesn’t live in London and I think lacks much sympathy for those who do.
I’m quite interested in New York which is hardly perfect but seems to have a lot of very dense high rise, but ALSO a more generous ring of suburban housing which gives way to beautiful countryside beyond.
My friends for example have just moved from a 2500 sq ft house in Zone 3/4 to a 8000 sqft in Long Island. Admittedly that’s an unusual case, but the trade off here is different.
I don't think it's a surprise that densely populated parts of the UK tend to have the highest GVA per capita and the best access to public services.
It's also by the far the cheapest way way to provide housing, with less land needed and serious levels of YIMBYism in areas with lots of renters.
That's if you're serious about productivity growth and housing supply, rather than a pathological need to concrete over the country.
If you're serious about housing supply, you have no problems with concrete.
Houses are absolutely flying up where I live, its absolutely fantastic. If it were replicated around the country, there'd be no housing crisis.
And if you remove the capital city distortion effect from GVA figures, then no its not correct.
Nonsense
Manchester and Brum massively under perform their peer second tier cities across Europe.
Barcelona, Milan, Lyon, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and a shed load more non capital cities right across Europe are far stronger economically than our second tier cities.
No one is saying there cannot be houses and people can choose to live in them, what they are saying is there needs to be an alternative that you oppose for some reason of heavily populated areas driving growth in the knowledge economy going forwards.
Reading is wealthy, Reading is wealthy because here is a huge population with a huge economy very well connected to Reading.
Blackburn could be wealthy if Manchester was more economically successful and Blackburn was much better connected to Manchester.
But we have neither.
Not the infrastructure nor population in Manchester to drive that economic growth, then we do not have the infrastructure to connect to Blackburn to spread that wealth.
But its not true either. They're not far stronger per capita.
We absolutely should improve our infrastructure, no questions about that, but we are not some third world impoverished area.
These data are a decade old, but I don't think the big picture has changed;
City centres seem to be productive in a way business parks aren't; people meet more and can switch jobs more easily. So we come back to the question - how much does Britain want to be rich. How much does it really really want it?
Britain gave up wanting to be rich years ago. Certainly by 2016. Britain just wants a comfortable retirement with an M&S ready meal and an Inspector Morse boxset.
How did you know I like M&S ready meals and watching Inspector Morse?
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Of course it survives contact with reality. Nobody should be forced into anything against their will.
If everybody chose not to live in a flat in London then flats in London would become vacant and their prices would collapse until a new equilibrium and people chose to live in them, or the land could be redeveloped.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Barty doesn’t live in London and I think lacks much sympathy for those who do.
I’m quite interested in New York which is hardly perfect but seems to have a lot of very dense high rise, but ALSO a more generous ring of suburban housing which gives way to beautiful countryside beyond.
My friends for example have just moved from a 2500 sq ft house in Zone 3/4 to a 8000 sqft in Long Island. Admittedly that’s an unusual case, but the trade off here is different.
I often think Barty would be much happier here.
I love New York!
As for London, I have a great deal of sympathy for those in London who are trapped spending their income on astronomical rents. More than others here it seems.
Despite my whining / giggling at Luton earlier it has been a very successful couple of days in that London. A very well received proposition at the trade show at ExCel and happy Mexican VIPs.
Went shopping before I flew hope. Mr anti-Apple now has a beloved MacBook Pro and unopened iPhone 15 Pro Max, Air Pods Pro and Apple Watch S9. You'd never guess my financial year end is Saturday...
And now for a weekend away. Have been married to wifey for 20 years and with my brother looking after the kids we are away for a spectacular weekend in a spectacular suite on Loch Rannoch...
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Of course it survives contact with reality. Nobody should be forced into anything against their will.
If everybody chose not to live in a flat in London then flats in London would become vacant and their prices would collapse until a new equilibrium and people chose to live in them, or the land could be redeveloped.
Wtf is this forced thing?
What happened to your precious market?
We haven't got a free market, our housing system is broken with a draconianly restricted planning system.
I support having a free market, but we haven't got one.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
By this principle, London and Switzerland are desperately unsuccessful areas, while Northern Ireland and Romania are successful.
Yes, London is desperately unsuccessful.
A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
London has the lowest rate of home ownership, 46.8%, that's a dismal failure.
If you're a part of the minority in London that can afford you're home then its great of course, but for the majority who have astronomical rents, yes it can be very bad to be piled high.
London also has lots of people - whether foreign students, people on secondment, or people at the very start of their careers - who are not in natural home owning groups.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
By this principle, London and Switzerland are desperately unsuccessful areas, while Northern Ireland and Romania are successful.
Yes, London is desperately unsuccessful.
A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
London has the lowest rate of home ownership, 46.8%, that's a dismal failure.
If you're a part of the minority in London that can afford you're home then its great of course, but for the majority who have astronomical rents, yes it can be very bad to be piled high.
London also has lots of people - whether foreign students, people on secondment, or people at the very start of their careers - who are not in natural home owning groups.
Though in the 90s people in their 20s could get on the ladder, so that's not good enough.
People in decent employment should be able to get their own home. If they can't, there's something broken.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
By this principle, London and Switzerland are desperately unsuccessful areas, while Northern Ireland and Romania are successful.
Yes, London is desperately unsuccessful.
A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
London has the lowest rate of home ownership, 46.8%, that's a dismal failure.
If you're a part of the minority in London that can afford you're home then its great of course, but for the majority who have astronomical rents, yes it can be very bad to be piled high.
London also has lots of people - whether foreign students, people on secondment, or people at the very start of their careers - who are not in natural home owning groups.
Though in the 90s people in their 20s could get on the ladder, so that's not good enough.
People in decent employment should be able to get their own home. If they can't, there's something broken.
My point is simply that London will always have a lower proportion of owner occupiers than the UK average.
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
By this principle, London and Switzerland are desperately unsuccessful areas, while Northern Ireland and Romania are successful.
Yes, London is desperately unsuccessful.
A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
London has the lowest rate of home ownership, 46.8%, that's a dismal failure.
If you're a part of the minority in London that can afford you're home then its great of course, but for the majority who have astronomical rents, yes it can be very bad to be piled high.
London also has lots of people - whether foreign students, people on secondment, or people at the very start of their careers - who are not in natural home owning groups.
Though in the 90s people in their 20s could get on the ladder, so that's not good enough.
People in decent employment should be able to get their own home. If they can't, there's something broken.
My point is simply that London will always have a lower proportion of owner occupiers than the UK average.
Not so significantly lower if the market's barriers are removed.
And only if you consider that a temporary situation for people in the first year or two (not decade or two) of their career, as it used to be. Not as a way of life, which it is currently.
In a remarkably candid memo to donors, the head of a well-funded GOP group admits that after extensive testing of more than 40 anti-Trump television ads, “all attempts to undermine his conservative credentials on specific issues were ineffective.”
I still can't believe they didn't join HS1 and HS2 up at St Pancras so that you could get on a train in Manchester and go all the way through to Paris or Amsterdam, just in order not to inconvenience the likes of Leon in Camden Town.
They should make a little mini-train that can adjust its gauge and detach from the main train like the Akita Shinkansen. Then it can do the last part on the Elizabeth Line and go from Birmingham all the way across London to Stratford, and connect to Paris and Brussels there like God intended.
Nah. This problem was solved years ago - just reintroduce slip coaches. Put a coach at the end of the train, and as it's approaching Old Oak Common, uncouple it and change the points for the Lizzie line. HS2 is so fast the slip coach should have enough momentum to go all the way through London to the seaside.
The simple reason why an HS2-HS1 link was not a top priority for HS2 (and only a side priority with the abandoned link via the NLL) was that there simply was not seen to be enough traffic to justify it as a top priority. Which is one of the reasons why the North of London services from the Channel Tunnel never started.
Perhaps that has changed in the fifteen or so years since HS2 was scoped out.
In a remarkably candid memo to donors, the head of a well-funded GOP group admits that after extensive testing of more than 40 anti-Trump television ads, “all attempts to undermine his conservative credentials on specific issues were ineffective.”
They need to talk to the guys who specialise in cult de-programming.
"Child soldiers, executions, bombs: Deadly gang violence turns Sweden into a ‘war zone’
Sweden is in the grip of a gun crime crisis. In 2022, there were 391 shootings in the county, and escalating gang violence has seen 11 people killed in September alone. ‘It’s like a war zone’, one witness tells Jakob Illeborg, who finds fear and loathing of foreigners rife in the new gun murder capital of Europe"
This is not a new story. Sweden has been clearly fucked by immigration for several years - hence their votes at elex. Maybe the dam on reporting it is now breaking
I know it's not new, but papers like the Independent didn't use to report it much.
I remember it being discussed a decade ago when I was in Sweden. It's extraordinary how much they've fucked it, especially compared to Norway.
I was amazed that during the migrant crisis of 2015, the Swedish government wanted more migrants to come to Sweden.
Sweden is a shining example of where open-borders idealism ends.
This case was a puzzle at the time, as it was quite unclear what was going on. Those who assumed the Met was at fault throughout were, of course, correct.
Whether it was corruption, or sheer incompetence isn’t entirely clear.
An investigation into the incident was launched by the Met, which found the officers had no case to answer for. Kennedy-Macfoy, who received an apology from the Met and compensation, appealed against the force’s decision to the IPCC. Izekor was appointed to oversee the investigation for the watchdog. But in July 2016, the misconduct hearing of the three officers involved in the case collapsed after allegations of evidence suppression.
A spokesperson for the Met confirmed the force received criminal allegations against Ikezor in September 2016. “The allegations were not made by the Met,” the spokesperson said.*…
… Police Scotland therefore conducted the investigation, which looked into whether Izekor had deliberately withheld crucial evidence during the misconduct hearing and whether she was racially biased against the police officers.
The investigation, dubbed Operation Amherst, took four and half years to complete, and cost the taxpayer more than £1.5m.
The conclusion of the investigation had not only exonerated her, Izekor said, but she was also shown evidence that the Met had possession of all the key disclosures all along.
*So who were they made by ?
How could this ‘mistake’ have remained uncorrected for years, while all this went on ? It seems quite likely that this was a deliberate ‘mistake’.
… She said that at the end of the three days of interviews Police Scotland officers told her that the Met did get all the necessary disclosures.
“It appeared that the officer who signed for [the disclosures] went on holiday after she brought them back to the Met. And she put them somewhere and she didn’t hand them over,” Izekor said. “I looked at the officers with my mouth on the floor. They said they told me ‘in the interest of justice’ – those were their precise words, I can’t forget it.”..
I see that Labour want to charge VAT on private school fees. But what about private schools that cater for children eith learning difficulties? We have a child that due to the Covid lockdown has a social communication disorder, and has recently had to move from a mainstream state school to a special state school (we were lucky to get a place).where they are very happy and doing well. But our plan had been to move to a private school near us that specialises in such children if the progress continues, to the great advantage of the state (they have about 1 teacher to 2 children at the current school). Are they going to make an exemption or do they not care?
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 1h Heseltine ended with a rousing call: “Have faith in the Tory party. When we come back, the Tory party will be led by someone who knows that power lies in the centre ground”
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Why would you build more houses where home ownership is already high?
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
Our Barty never saw a garden he didn’t want to concrete over
I'm explicitly pro-gardens!
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I feel like there’s a latent argument you make which is that revealed preference shows that people generally want a large-ish suburban house, not an small-ish apartment, and that Britain ought to be better at enabling that via improved market competition.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
He's not wrong about the preference - I want to live in a big house in the countryside.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
Barty doesn’t live in London and I think lacks much sympathy for those who do.
I’m quite interested in New York which is hardly perfect but seems to have a lot of very dense high rise, but ALSO a more generous ring of suburban housing which gives way to beautiful countryside beyond.
My friends for example have just moved from a 2500 sq ft house in Zone 3/4 to a 8000 sqft in Long Island. Admittedly that’s an unusual case, but the trade off here is different.
I often think Barty would be much happier here.
Why do you think everyone who thinks differently to you would be happier in the US?
Perusing the data it seems the city with the highest home ownership rate in the North West is actually Preston. Which may also be the least dense city in the North West and have the highest rate of driving. Its also rather divorced from Liverpool-Manchester contiguous region which towns like Warrington and Wigan are in.
Piling serfs up high in order to be 'productive' to pay rent to their betters might appeal to people like HYUFD, I'm not sure why it appeals to left wingers here.
Nobody is arguing to “pile serfs high”. Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Proposing that we boost people renting in cities absolutely is piling serfs high.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
I must have missed that bit.
Which poster proposed we boost people renting in cities? The argument is that, for various reasons, Britain is missing out on the agglomerative benefits that ought to be generated by the North.
Eabhal and others were proposing we cram more people into the already overcrowded and failing cities where there's no space and home ownership rates are already catastrophically lower.
Britain is not missing out on it though, but we certainly could and should boost infrastructure, on that we can agree.
I think there’s pretty universal agreement that Britain is indeed missing out on agglomerative effects.
At least for anyone who’s actually looked into the issue. I agree that it doesn’t necessarily follow that UK cities ought to densify, the key issue is infrastructure.
It is true though the denser cities tend to have better infrastructure so there’s at least a secondary relationship.
Our issue is the process of commissioning infrastructure and the lack of brave and consistent political leadership in delivering it.
It goes back decades. And HMT always offer up capital spend for the chop every spending cycle, which ministers greedily lap up.
Comments
At 49 mins 25 secs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3eb5b5DOZs
I'm surprised - I had you down as Captain Efficiency. Your faith in the market is wafer thin.
One third of Warringtonians being denied their own home is not remotely good enough in my view. A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
Housing should be built everywhere, for as much as people are prepared to pay for it.
The only reason more homes aren't being built is our broken planning system, not the market. Liberalise it, let the market sort it out.
Here where we have more space, there's thankfully more YIMBYism than there is elsewhere.
Absurd straw-manning from you this evening.
We’re all glad you really enjoy living in Warrington however.
Our successful areas are those where people can afford their own home, not those where they have to rent forever.
Which poster proposed we boost people renting in cities? The argument is that, for various reasons, Britain is missing out on the agglomerative benefits that ought to be generated by the North.
High demand = high rents = inability to save
High demand = high prices = large deposit
Supply in these areas will help home ownership. Alternatives include hitting short-term lets as hard as possible, which is already having a positive effect in Edinburgh.
(To my personal detriment)
But yes, there is a dispiriting suburban nanny-statism that characterises much of British culture.
Britain is not missing out on it though, but we certainly could and should boost infrastructure, on that we can agree.
There are plenty of people who live in detached houses who are suffering too.
I’m there right now.
It’s OK.
A majority of Londoners being denied their own home is absolutely atrocious.
London has the lowest rate of home ownership, 46.8%, that's a dismal failure.
If you're a part of the minority in London that can afford you're home then its great of course, but for the majority who have astronomical rents, yes it can be very bad to be piled high.
At least for anyone who’s actually looked into the issue.
I agree that it doesn’t necessarily follow that UK cities ought to densify, the key issue is infrastructure.
It is true though the denser cities tend to have better infrastructure so there’s at least a secondary relationship.
Towns having gardens is one of their big bonuses over being piled high in shitty flats.
I agree with a lot of that, but you keep ruining your argument by insisting that flats and cyclists and trees are evil or something.
I'm pro-trees. Building more towns and roads and houses equals more trees not fewer. There's thousands of trees on the just the one new road I'm off that have been planted to go with our new area that wouldn't be here if it hadn't been developed. There's more trees than houses on the estate and the main road is tree lined all the way.
I'm also pro-cycling. I've taught my kids to ride, one currently needs stabilisers, and I ride myself. I'm pro-cycling paths and support investing in new roads to be able to build more cycle paths.
As for flats, I don't like them, but I am pro those being constructed for those who do want them. Pro-choice.
But that doesn't survive contact with reality. What would happen if the whole of London refused to live in flats?
I'm not saying I like this: Like Bart I think you should just let people choose if they want to use their space for gardens or homes and not try to centrally plan it. But if you had a policy goal of having lots of green space in the city around where people live but also increasing density, it's possible to do it.
If everybody chose not to live in a flat in London then flats in London would become vacant and their prices would collapse until a new equilibrium and people chose to live in them, or the land could be redeveloped.
I’m quite interested in New York which is hardly perfect but seems to have a lot of very dense high rise, but ALSO a more generous ring of suburban housing which gives way to beautiful countryside beyond.
My friends for example have just moved from a 2500 sq ft house in Zone 3/4 to a 8000 sqft in Long Island. Admittedly that’s an unusual case, but the trade off here is different.
I often think Barty would be much happier here.
What happened to your precious market?
As for London, I have a great deal of sympathy for those in London who are trapped spending their income on astronomical rents. More than others here it seems.
Went shopping before I flew hope. Mr anti-Apple now has a beloved MacBook Pro and unopened iPhone 15 Pro Max, Air Pods Pro and Apple Watch S9. You'd never guess my financial year end is Saturday...
And now for a weekend away. Have been married to wifey for 20 years and with my brother looking after the kids we are away for a spectacular weekend in a spectacular suite on Loch Rannoch...
I support having a free market, but we haven't got one.
"A woman in her 20s, thought to be an innocent bystander, was killed when a bomb tore up a house in Uppsala in the early hours of Thursday."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-opposition-party-calls-military-tackle-deadly-gang-war-2023-09-28/
People in decent employment should be able to get their own home. If they can't, there's something broken.
And only if you consider that a temporary situation for people in the first year or two (not decade or two) of their career, as it used to be. Not as a way of life, which it is currently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gArmO2RVW-8
In a remarkably candid memo to donors, the head of a well-funded GOP group admits that after extensive testing of more than 40 anti-Trump television ads, “all attempts to undermine his conservative credentials on specific issues were ineffective.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_coach
The simple reason why an HS2-HS1 link was not a top priority for HS2 (and only a side priority with the abandoned link via the NLL) was that there simply was not seen to be enough traffic to justify it as a top priority. Which is one of the reasons why the North of London services from the Channel Tunnel never started.
Perhaps that has changed in the fifteen or so years since HS2 was scoped out.
Those who assumed the Met was at fault throughout were, of course, correct.
Whether it was corruption, or sheer incompetence isn’t entirely clear.
Watchdog commissioner says Met sabotaged her career over investigations of racism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/28/watchdog-commissioner-says-met-sabotaged-her-career-over-investigations-of-racism
… Izekor was one of three commissioners overseeing a number of high-profile police complaints against the Met, including the case of the firefighter Edric Kennedy-Macfoy, who was Tasered by police officers in north London weeks after the 2011 riots.
An investigation into the incident was launched by the Met, which found the officers had no case to answer for. Kennedy-Macfoy, who received an apology from the Met and compensation, appealed against the force’s decision to the IPCC. Izekor was appointed to oversee the investigation for the watchdog. But in July 2016, the misconduct hearing of the three officers involved in the case collapsed after allegations of evidence suppression.
A spokesperson for the Met confirmed the force received criminal allegations against Ikezor in September 2016. “The allegations were not made by the Met,” the spokesperson said.*…
… Police Scotland therefore conducted the investigation, which looked into whether Izekor had deliberately withheld crucial evidence during the misconduct hearing and whether she was racially biased against the police officers.
The investigation, dubbed Operation Amherst, took four and half years to complete, and cost the taxpayer more than £1.5m.
The conclusion of the investigation had not only exonerated her, Izekor said, but she was also shown evidence that the Met had possession of all the key disclosures all along.
*So who were they made by ?
How could this ‘mistake’ have remained uncorrected for years, while all this went on ?
It seems quite likely that this was a deliberate ‘mistake’.
… She said that at the end of the three days of interviews Police Scotland officers told her that the Met did get all the necessary disclosures.
“It appeared that the officer who signed for [the disclosures] went on holiday after she brought them back to the Met. And she put them somewhere and she didn’t hand them over,” Izekor said. “I looked at the officers with my mouth on the floor. They said they told me ‘in the interest of justice’ – those were their precise words, I can’t forget it.”..
'Social care' seems to absorb everything.
Because you are?
It goes back decades. And HMT always offer up capital spend for the chop every spending cycle, which ministers greedily lap up.