What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
We need to BUILD MORE HIGH QUALITY AND ATTRACTIVE HOUSES WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO LIVE. If we just focus on numbers, like we did in the 50s and 60s, we'll just end up with prefab slums, many of which are either barely inhabitable or have to be pulled down in a few decades, and all of which are eyesores. Big developers and government only care about short-term profits and numbers respectively.And if we build them places where nobody wants to live (e.g. much of the North), we'll just attract the dregs and they'll become sink estates.
Whitehall is so captured by the big developers and so contempuous of the people who pay its salaries that this staggeringly obvious solution isn't on the agenda, but it's difficult to see how to fix the housing crisis sustainably and long-term without a big expansion of self-build, from 10% now to the levels seen in France or Germany (60%) or Austria (80%).
35 years ago, just under 40% of all new houses were built by SME housebuilders. Now that figure is 10%. A major issue is that the red tape surrounding the whole process is so gargantuan and expensive that only the largest housebuilders can cope. Planning only forms one part of this, and focussing on this alone will not solve the overriding issue.
Large housebuilders will focus only on very large developments (where numbers of units are in their 100s), and, yes, sure, these sort of plots are becoming harder to find. But there are massive numbers of smaller plots (where, say, 20-50 houses could be built) that SMEs could buy, obtain planning and develop, were it made viable for them to do so.
The biggest thing a government can do is to make it an attractive option for people to set up small housebuilding companies, and make it easier for current SMEs to cope with the ever burgeoning regulations. Get that ratio between large/small housebuilders back up from 90/10 to 75/25 Sadly, I don't see either main party remotely grasping this, and suspect it'll only get worse.
I saw this below the other day and it looked like the sort of cul de sac development that would hopefully be acceptable on the edge of villages in nice country areas to assuage the horror of nimby objectors. I like the way each house is oriented to have a view without seeming to be on top of the other houses but nice use of natural stone whilst also having a low profile but lots of natural light.
One entrance in, one exit out. A single bastich at the bottleneck can make the entire close hellish. No footpaths to alternate routes out.
Every flat should have its own front door to the external world (no shared hallways) with its own letter box. Each front door should have at least two distinct routes to exit the estate and a safe place to park the car that you can walk to without crossing somebody else's land. Bad people should not be able to find a choke point on the paths. Green spaces eventually develop desire paths so look out for them.
They were built in 1963, and seem a major success. While I like a walled courtyard as an idea, it does seem less social.
I think the walled courtyards are a good idea for neighbourly relations. None of them are next to each other - if you think of a row of town houses or rigid neighbouring gardens then there is always the potential to end up next door to someone noisy and sociable when you want peace or someone quiet you feel you have to tiptoe around when being sociable. I imagine you have a wing which is sleeping/ablutions and a living wing and the design looks like it could use efficient commercial construction techniques with walls of glass on one side and solid on the other to avoid complexity so quicker and cheaper to build perhaps.
You are part of a cul de sac in practical terms but I imagine you feel a great sense of privacy too.
Pretty damning opinion of Sunak and his policies, even by Con voters in todays Yougov daily:
That is quite something. A glimmer of hope for Sunak - people are marginally more opposed to his policies than to him per se. I think that's fair actually. Incredibly negative numbers overall though - even from his own party. Do we really have to endure another year of this, maybe longer? Nobody wants these people in power anymore.
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
It's a bit like tulips. Mad scarcity vs demand and they become a financial instrument. Sufficient supply and they go back to being nice flowers.
Oh no you couldn't leave it, could you. I gave you an elegant judicious closer but you have to say something else.
Ok, cute analogy but Yes and No. It's not just the supply deficit that has led to our bizarre unhealthy irrational approach to residential property. There are those other factors I've mentioned. They're important. Trust me they are.
No, they're not.
Its entirely the supply shortage.
Without the supply shortage, all the other factors you mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
Take private sector landlords for instance: If there's an abundance of supply then a private sector landlord that holds a property that is put on the market for too much (or in poor quality) then the potential tenants have the ability to ignore that landlord and go elsewhere instead leaving the landlord paying tax on the land he's holding without a tenant to pay for it.
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
Would also note that the two main east west routes in the north (Diggle and Hope Valley)* are also at capacity.
*Ever been in a meeting with train people? You have to use the special train words. Then train people will recognise you as one of their own, and everyone will have great fun showing that they too know the train words. Why say 'the Huddersfield line' or 'the Warrington Central Line' or 'the Burnley Manchester Road' line when you could say 'Diggle' or 'CLC' or 'the Copy Pit line'? Much more fun.
HS2 to Manchester was a manifesto commitment in 2019.
I had forgotten that.
Sunak breaks manifesto.
Pretty sure social care fix was also. Again cancelled by Sunak.
I’m loathe to defend him as he is shit, but circumstances at the time of writing that manifesto are very different now, the pandemic and war have seen to that. And let’s be honest - do you actually believe manifesto promises?
All parties committed to HS2 - the fact the promise was broken just shows how incompetent we are as a country for all the reasons I've posted multiple times today.
Things that could be easily fixed if we had a medium or long term plan with teams of people starting project 1 and then moving on to child projects 2,3, 4 and 5 so the skills and knowledge was used in subsequent projects rather than getting lost.
Indeed.
David Cameron used to tout "long term economic plan" and that's exactly what we need with infrastructure too, a long term plan.
Not a single white elephant that is "too big to fail [or succeed]".
For instance on transportation we should have a half dozen plus entirely new major motorways getting built across the country. But not all at once, build a few mile stretches at a time starting where they'll have an immediate impact [like the original "Preston bypass"] that eventually hook up into each other completing the long-term vision.
When one is close to finishing completion, we should be in the final stages of considering what the next one will be after that, rather than resting on our laurels.
Shocked and saddened, that right after the Anti-Semite Octopus scandal, you have resorted to obvious Aryan Nations White Elephant trope (or is it meme, or both?) to make your point.
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
It's a bit like tulips. Mad scarcity vs demand and they become a financial instrument. Sufficient supply and they go back to being nice flowers.
Oh no you couldn't leave it, could you. I gave you an elegant judicious closer but you have to say something else.
Ok, cute analogy but Yes and No. It's not just the supply deficit that has led to our bizarre unhealthy irrational approach to residential property. There are those other factors I've mentioned. They're important. Trust me they are.
Actually, it is, IMHO
In my parents day, you bought a house to live in. When you sold it, if you did well, did it up etc, you got your money back. By paying off the mortgage, you got a place to live for free at the end of your working life.
Shit houses didn’t sell for good (or sometimes any) money. So you were damn careful to try and avoid them.
I’ve watched over the years as housing turned into a one way, double digit return a year, guaranteed investment. And the market became exactly like all the other markets in guaranteed, double digit return investments. Full of bullshit, chancers and waiting for the bang…. Except that this one was supported by the force of law.
Who knew you could have a fury wank over a kid's stuffed octopus? Never ever underestimate PB.
Makes you wonder what PB would do if I put a pic of my stuffed koala on.
I heard a koala was the mascot of the SS Sturmbrigade-Dirlewanger.
Given the meh reaction to Rangers fans putting the Totenkopf up, I really do wonder what would trigger PB generally on that side.
(And it's a toy one, not an actual stuffed one, albeit with kangaroo fur for the skin, which was/is a pest species anyway, like making your cuddly octopus from rat fur I suppose).
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
We need to BUILD MORE HIGH QUALITY AND ATTRACTIVE HOUSES WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO LIVE. If we just focus on numbers, like we did in the 50s and 60s, we'll just end up with prefab slums, many of which are either barely inhabitable or have to be pulled down in a few decades, and all of which are eyesores. Big developers and government only care about short-term profits and numbers respectively.And if we build them places where nobody wants to live (e.g. much of the North), we'll just attract the dregs and they'll become sink estates.
Whitehall is so captured by the big developers and so contempuous of the people who pay its salaries that this staggeringly obvious solution isn't on the agenda, but it's difficult to see how to fix the housing crisis sustainably and long-term without a big expansion of self-build, from 10% now to the levels seen in France or Germany (60%) or Austria (80%).
35 years ago, just under 40% of all new houses were built by SME housebuilders. Now that figure is 10%. A major issue is that the red tape surrounding the whole process is so gargantuan and expensive that only the largest housebuilders can cope. Planning only forms one part of this, and focussing on this alone will not solve the overriding issue.
Large housebuilders will focus only on very large developments (where numbers of units are in their 100s), and, yes, sure, these sort of plots are becoming harder to find. But there are massive numbers of smaller plots (where, say, 20-50 houses could be built) that SMEs could buy, obtain planning and develop, were it made viable for them to do so.
The biggest thing a government can do is to make it an attractive option for people to set up small housebuilding companies, and make it easier for current SMEs to cope with the ever burgeoning regulations. Get that ratio between large/small housebuilders back up from 90/10 to 75/25 Sadly, I don't see either main party remotely grasping this, and suspect it'll only get worse.
But small businesses have a habit of going broke more than big businesses. If your house-builder goes bankrupt when your house is half-built, and you have already paid for it - what then?
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
We need to BUILD MORE HIGH QUALITY AND ATTRACTIVE HOUSES WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO LIVE. If we just focus on numbers, like we did in the 50s and 60s, we'll just end up with prefab slums, many of which are either barely inhabitable or have to be pulled down in a few decades, and all of which are eyesores. Big developers and government only care about short-term profits and numbers respectively.And if we build them places where nobody wants to live (e.g. much of the North), we'll just attract the dregs and they'll become sink estates.
Whitehall is so captured by the big developers and so contempuous of the people who pay its salaries that this staggeringly obvious solution isn't on the agenda, but it's difficult to see how to fix the housing crisis sustainably and long-term without a big expansion of self-build, from 10% now to the levels seen in France or Germany (60%) or Austria (80%).
35 years ago, just under 40% of all new houses were built by SME housebuilders. Now that figure is 10%. A major issue is that the red tape surrounding the whole process is so gargantuan and expensive that only the largest housebuilders can cope. Planning only forms one part of this, and focussing on this alone will not solve the overriding issue.
Large housebuilders will focus only on very large developments (where numbers of units are in their 100s), and, yes, sure, these sort of plots are becoming harder to find. But there are massive numbers of smaller plots (where, say, 20-50 houses could be built) that SMEs could buy, obtain planning and develop, were it made viable for them to do so.
The biggest thing a government can do is to make it an attractive option for people to set up small housebuilding companies, and make it easier for current SMEs to cope with the ever burgeoning regulations. Get that ratio between large/small housebuilders back up from 90/10 to 75/25 Sadly, I don't see either main party remotely grasping this, and suspect it'll only get worse.
But small businesses have a habit of going broke more than big businesses. If your house-builder goes bankrupt when your house is half-built, and you have already paid for it - what then?
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
Would also note that the two main east west routes in the north (Diggle and Hope Valley)* are also at capacity.
*Ever been in a meeting with train people? You have to use the special train words. Then train people will recognise you as one of their own, and everyone will have great fun showing that they too know the train words. Why say 'the Huddersfield line' or 'the Warrington Central Line' or 'the Burnley Manchester Road' line when you could say 'Diggle' or 'CLC' or 'the Copy Pit line'? Much more fun.
Just don't ask them about the Sodor & Man Railway.
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
We need to BUILD MORE HIGH QUALITY AND ATTRACTIVE HOUSES WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT TO LIVE. If we just focus on numbers, like we did in the 50s and 60s, we'll just end up with prefab slums, many of which are either barely inhabitable or have to be pulled down in a few decades, and all of which are eyesores. Big developers and government only care about short-term profits and numbers respectively.And if we build them places where nobody wants to live (e.g. much of the North), we'll just attract the dregs and they'll become sink estates.
Whitehall is so captured by the big developers and so contempuous of the people who pay its salaries that this staggeringly obvious solution isn't on the agenda, but it's difficult to see how to fix the housing crisis sustainably and long-term without a big expansion of self-build, from 10% now to the levels seen in France or Germany (60%) or Austria (80%).
35 years ago, just under 40% of all new houses were built by SME housebuilders. Now that figure is 10%. A major issue is that the red tape surrounding the whole process is so gargantuan and expensive that only the largest housebuilders can cope. Planning only forms one part of this, and focussing on this alone will not solve the overriding issue.
Large housebuilders will focus only on very large developments (where numbers of units are in their 100s), and, yes, sure, these sort of plots are becoming harder to find. But there are massive numbers of smaller plots (where, say, 20-50 houses could be built) that SMEs could buy, obtain planning and develop, were it made viable for them to do so.
The biggest thing a government can do is to make it an attractive option for people to set up small housebuilding companies, and make it easier for current SMEs to cope with the ever burgeoning regulations. Get that ratio between large/small housebuilders back up from 90/10 to 75/25 Sadly, I don't see either main party remotely grasping this, and suspect it'll only get worse.
I saw this below the other day and it looked like the sort of cul de sac development that would hopefully be acceptable on the edge of villages in nice country areas to assuage the horror of nimby objectors. I like the way each house is oriented to have a view without seeming to be on top of the other houses but nice use of natural stone whilst also having a low profile but lots of natural light.
One entrance in, one exit out. A single bastich at the bottleneck can make the entire close hellish. No footpaths to alternate routes out.
Every flat should have its own front door to the external world (no shared hallways) with its own letter box. Each front door should have at least two distinct routes to exit the estate and a safe place to park the car that you can walk to without crossing somebody else's land. Bad people should not be able to find a choke point on the paths. Green spaces eventually develop desire paths so look out for them.
They were built in 1963, and seem a major success. While I like a walled courtyard as an idea, it does seem less social.
I think the walled courtyards are a good idea for neighbourly relations. None of them are next to each other - if you think of a row of town houses or rigid neighbouring gardens then there is always the potential to end up next door to someone noisy and sociable when you want peace or someone quiet you feel you have to tiptoe around when being sociable. I imagine you have a wing which is sleeping/ablutions and a living wing and the design looks like it could use efficient commercial construction techniques with walls of glass on one side and solid on the other to avoid complexity so quicker and cheaper to build perhaps.
You are part of a cul de sac in practical terms but I imagine you feel a great sense of privacy too.
Personally, I like a walled compound as it makes for a lot of private space, a bit like in Africa.
I see they were built by the architect of the Sydney Opera House, which is 50 years old today.
Given how hard it has been for them simply to say no to an open insurrectionist, never mind going Indy or Democrat and ending their careers, and given nearly all of the holdouts are still Trump backers, that seems improbable.
An example where an apology undermines what might otherwise have been misplaced integrity - if it's a duty to protect people from Halloween pumpkins then them being carved by children should make no difference.
A Czech parish priest has apologised to local children after stomping on Halloween pumpkins near his church.
Father Jaromir Smejkal destroyed the carved pumpkins on two successive days in a park in Kurdejov, a village in the wine-making region of South Moravia.
He has apologised for the vandalism in an open letter to the mayor and published on the village Facebook page.
He said he would have acted differently had he known they were carved by children.
"Leaving the rectory on Sunday evening, I saw numerous symbols of the satanic feast of 'Halloween' placed in front of our sacred grounds," he wrote.
"I acted according to my faith and duty to be a father and protector of the children entrusted to me and removed these symbols," said Father Smejkal, parish priest at the Roman Catholic Church of St John the Baptist.
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
It's a bit like tulips. Mad scarcity vs demand and they become a financial instrument. Sufficient supply and they go back to being nice flowers.
Oh no you couldn't leave it, could you. I gave you an elegant judicious closer but you have to say something else.
Ok, cute analogy but Yes and No. It's not just the supply deficit that has led to our bizarre unhealthy irrational approach to residential property. There are those other factors I've mentioned. They're important. Trust me they are.
Actually, it is, IMHO
In my parents day, you bought a house to live in. When you sold it, if you did well, did it up etc, you got your money back. By paying off the mortgage, you got a place to live for free at the end of your working life.
Shit houses didn’t sell for good (or sometimes any) money. So you were damn careful to try and avoid them.
I’ve watched over the years as housing turned into a one way, double digit return a year, guaranteed investment. And the market became exactly like all the other makers in guaranteed, double digit return investments. Full of bullshit, chancers and waiting for the bang…. Except that this one was supported by the force of law.
Yep. Agree so much I could shout. But - I'll just have to keep saying this I sense - it's more than just supply. We've had a long period of subsidy via near zero interest rates, a free for all on the financing side, the buy to let explosion, the trend for the wealthy to own multiple properties, profiteering developers, governments propping up the market to avoid a politically fatal crash, the neglect of social housing, interventions to distort the market rather than reform it, I could go on. But I won't. Clock says Chilean red and nuts.
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
It's a bit like tulips. Mad scarcity vs demand and they become a financial instrument. Sufficient supply and they go back to being nice flowers.
Oh no you couldn't leave it, could you. I gave you an elegant judicious closer but you have to say something else.
Ok, cute analogy but Yes and No. It's not just the supply deficit that has led to our bizarre unhealthy irrational approach to residential property. There are those other factors I've mentioned. They're important. Trust me they are.
No, they're not.
Its entirely the supply shortage.
Without the supply shortage, all the other factors you mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
Take private sector landlords for instance: If there's an abundance of supply then a private sector landlord that holds a property that is put on the market for too much (or in poor quality) then the potential tenants have the ability to ignore that landlord and go elsewhere instead leaving the landlord paying tax on the land he's holding without a tenant to pay for it.
Oh no, Barty back on his self obsessed hobbyhorse. Property is called property because it is property. Some people are fortunate enough to invest in it and do well. It is a commodity. Owning a house is not a God given right, nor even a human right.
Here is a hint Bart, how about spending less time on her and spend some time building a business? When it is really successful you can take out an eye watering mortgage and buy a bigger house, or even an additional one on the coast. It is called capitalism.
Alternatively, you can be a socialist and be envious of people that have things that you do not.
The GOP have a majority it is up to them to elect a Speaker. It's not like our HoC Speaker, Would Tory MPs vote Starmer for PM?
That might work politically for the Dems but it means that government will cease to function for a year.
Like it or not the Dems have a responsibility.
The Dems don't have to bail out the Republicans. The Republicans won the House and it is their responsibility to elect a Speaker (who is basically someone to lead them). Imagine the Tories or Labour refusing to elect a Prime Minister. In the US House you can have a Speaker who isn't even a Representative, so Trump or Liz Cheney or anyone could be Speaker. If the GOP can't choose a leader it is open to them to come to a power sharing agreement with the Dems. The easiest way out of the impasse is for a moderate Republican to be put forward as Speaker with a few concessions to the Dems. It's time for the Republican majority to stop bowing down to Matt Gaetz and his handful of anarchists.
As you know, several famous film directors are in their late-period and their latest/upcoming film may be their last. Spielberg underperformed with The Fabelmans, Ridley Scott may I think drop a big huge steaming fetid one with Napoleon, Michael Mann could go either way with Ferrari, but Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out and the reviews, whilst not stellar, are good. I can breathe out a little bit.
My wife met Michael Mann some years back. She also had a movie about Ferrari. She read his script. And was greatly underwhelmed. For example, he had messed around with the Ferrari drivers and the order they were killed (because he liked one of the driver's girlfriends and wanted more of her on screeen.) Anyway, she declined to work with him and instead went and produced a documentary. Her film - Ferrari: Race To Immortality - gets very high regard as one of the best films ever made about F1.
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
What you've done is accept that before the recent cancellation to Manchester the budget was consistent with an estimate of £100bn at 2023 prices, because you're just quoting the same source that the Guardian used to arrive at the conclusion that that £100bn cost "seems reasonable".
That compares with the £32.7bn original estimate when the go-ahead was given in 2012, which when you strip out the already abandoned leg to Leeds would have left something in the ball park of £25m for the rest of the network.
So even the official estimate now is already consistent with a fourfold increase in HS2 costs on a like-for-like network basis. You can't explain the vast majority of that by the change from a 2012 to a 2023 price base - that is, general inflation over the past 11 years.
The justification for HS2 was never originally about capacity. It is the high speed element that is responsible for much of the extraordinary cost.
The GOP have a majority it is up to them to elect a Speaker. It's not like our HoC Speaker, Would Tory MPs vote Starmer for PM?
That might work politically for the Dems but it means that government will cease to function for a year.
Like it or not the Dems have a responsibility.
The Dems don't have to bail out the Republicans. The Republicans won the House and it is their responsibility to elect a Speaker (who is basically someone to lead them). Imagine the Tories or Labour refusing to elect a Prime Minister. In the US House you can have a Speaker who isn't even a Representative, so Trump or Liz Cheney or anyone could be Speaker. If the GOP can't choose a leader it is open to them to come to a power sharing agreement with the Dems. The easiest way out of the impasse is for a moderate Republican to be put forward as Speaker with a few concessions to the Dems. It's time for the Republican majority to stop bowing down to Matt Gaetz and his handful of anarchists.
There is some talk of the Republican MAGA caucus going for Trump next.
As you know, several famous film directors are in their late-period and their latest/upcoming film may be their last. Spielberg underperformed with The Fabelmans, Ridley Scott may I think drop a big huge steaming fetid one with Napoleon, Michael Mann could go either way with Ferrari, but Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out and the reviews, whilst not stellar, are good. I can breathe out a little bit.
My wife met Michael Mann some years back. She also had a movie about Ferrari. She read his script. And was greatly underwhelmed. For example, he had messed around with the Ferrari drivers and the order they were killed (because he liked one of the driver's girlfriends and wanted more of her on screeen.) Anyway, she declined to work with him and instead went and produced a documentary. Her film - Ferrari: Race To Immortality - gets very high regard as one of the best films ever made about F1.
Pretty damning opinion of Sunak and his policies, even by Con voters in todays Yougov daily:
That is quite something. A glimmer of hope for Sunak - people are marginally more opposed to his policies than to him per se. I think that's fair actually. Incredibly negative numbers overall though - even from his own party. Do we really have to endure another year of this, maybe longer? Nobody wants these people in power anymore.
Not true. I am quite happy with "these people" in power, even though they are truly suboptimal. It is because the alternative is a lot worse. Sir Boredom will be popular for about a month before everyone realises that the Tories (even under the fat buffoon) know more about managing things than the party of lightweights and failed public sector workers.
Given how hard it has been for them simply to say no to an open insurrectionist, never mind going Indy or Democrat and ending their careers, and given nearly all of the holdouts are still Trump backers, that seems improbable.
18 Republicans were elected in districts that voted for Biden. If they supported Jordan (election denier, Trump supporter etc) they could well lose re-election. Of course they could also be primaried if they supported Hakeem. I'd expect them to be looking for a compromise. There's also a deadline looming with regard to the shutdown, those are unpopular.
The GOP have a majority it is up to them to elect a Speaker. It's not like our HoC Speaker, Would Tory MPs vote Starmer for PM?
That might work politically for the Dems but it means that government will cease to function for a year.
Like it or not the Dems have a responsibility.
The Dems don't have to bail out the Republicans. The Republicans won the House and it is their responsibility to elect a Speaker (who is basically someone to lead them). Imagine the Tories or Labour refusing to elect a Prime Minister. In the US House you can have a Speaker who isn't even a Representative, so Trump or Liz Cheney or anyone could be Speaker. If the GOP can't choose a leader it is open to them to come to a power sharing agreement with the Dems. The easiest way out of the impasse is for a moderate Republican to be put forward as Speaker with a few concessions to the Dems. It's time for the Republican majority to stop bowing down to Matt Gaetz and his handful of anarchists.
There is some talk of the Republican MAGA caucus going for Trump next.
The Dems must be rubbing their hands together in anticipation.
Given how hard it has been for them simply to say no to an open insurrectionist, never mind going Indy or Democrat and ending their careers, and given nearly all of the holdouts are still Trump backers, that seems improbable.
18 Republicans were elected in districts that voted for Biden. If they supported Jordan (election denier, Trump supporter etc) they could well lose re-election. Of course they could also be primaried if they supported Hakeem. I'd expect them to be looking for a compromise. There's also a deadline looming with regard to the shutdown, those are unpopular.
I'd have assumed the compromise was empowering the temporary speaker, but the Jordanites trashed that idea yesterday.
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
It's a bit like tulips. Mad scarcity vs demand and they become a financial instrument. Sufficient supply and they go back to being nice flowers.
Oh no you couldn't leave it, could you. I gave you an elegant judicious closer but you have to say something else.
Ok, cute analogy but Yes and No. It's not just the supply deficit that has led to our bizarre unhealthy irrational approach to residential property. There are those other factors I've mentioned. They're important. Trust me they are.
No, they're not.
Its entirely the supply shortage.
Without the supply shortage, all the other factors you mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
Take private sector landlords for instance: If there's an abundance of supply then a private sector landlord that holds a property that is put on the market for too much (or in poor quality) then the potential tenants have the ability to ignore that landlord and go elsewhere instead leaving the landlord paying tax on the land he's holding without a tenant to pay for it.
You're bending the real world into a shape to suit your doctrine. But ok, solution, let's see if the new normal of interest rates triple what everybody got used to does or doesn't lead to a big and permanent real terms drop in house prices. If you're right that only supply matters it won't. If I'm right that other factors, like the cost of money, also matter it will. I think that's better than trying to grind out a result on here.
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
What you've done is accept that before the recent cancellation to Manchester the budget was consistent with an estimate of £100bn at 2023 prices, because you're just quoting the same source that the Guardian used to arrive at the conclusion that that £100bn cost "seems reasonable".
That compares with the £32.7bn original estimate when the go-ahead was given in 2012, which when you strip out the already abandoned leg to Leeds would have left something in the ball park of £25m for the rest of the network.
So even the official estimate now is already consistent with a fourfold increase in HS2 costs on a like-for-like network basis. You can't explain the vast majority of that by the change from a 2012 to a 2023 price base - that is, general inflation over the past 11 years.
The justification for HS2 was never originally about capacity. It is the high speed element that is responsible for much of the extraordinary cost.
The justification for HS2 was capacity. It was just the media who focused on the speed and no-one corrected them - I remember the very first announcements and thinking they've screwed up the presentation here.
HS2 when completed would significantly increase the capacity on all 3 existing lines (because with the express trains removed all the other trains would run at the same speed allowing a lot more trains to run on the route) while both significantly reducing journey times and increase capacity on the fast routes (because the new trains will be twice the length of the old ones).
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
The justification for HS2 was never originally about capacity. It is the high speed element that is responsible for much of the extraordinary cost.
Simply not true, the command paper from 2010 has this in the foreword, the Brown government.
"The Government has evaluated these proposals in respect of their costs and benefits for enhancing capacity and connectivity in a sustainable way, which is its key strategic objective for inter-city transport"
The high speed element was always the best way of increasing capacity, taking away the hugely capacity draining high speed trains away from the freight and commuter services.
NYT live blog - [in response to "offer" by GOP mega-MAGA-maniac brigade behind Jim Jordan]
> Representative Carlos Gimenez of Florida, another Jordan holdout, said their stance was based on principle. "There’s nothing we want,” he said, “so there’s nothing he can offer us.” Gimenez added that grinding through more ballots will only lose Jordan support, and that some members may leave Washington for the weekend, shaking up Jordan’s math.
> Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, one of the holdouts, says: “There’s nothing that people can give us. There’s nothing that people can trade. That’s not what this is about.”
> House Republicans are about to meet behind closed doors in the basement to try to figure out next steps.
SSI -
Theater of the Absurd 1953 - Waiting for Godot Theater of the Absurd 2023 - Waiting for Speaker
Giminex is interesting, he's a Republican but in 2016 he supported Hillary and "On February 4, 2021, he joined 10 other House Republicans voting with all voting Democrats to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her House Education and Labor Committee, and House Budget Committee assignments in response to conspiratorial and violent statements she had made."
Pretty damning opinion of Sunak and his policies, even by Con voters in todays Yougov daily:
That is quite something. A glimmer of hope for Sunak - people are marginally more opposed to his policies than to him per se. I think that's fair actually. Incredibly negative numbers overall though - even from his own party. Do we really have to endure another year of this, maybe longer? Nobody wants these people in power anymore.
Not true. I am quite happy with "these people" in power, even though they are truly suboptimal. It is because the alternative is a lot worse. Sir Boredom will be popular for about a month before everyone realises that the Tories (even under the fat buffoon) know more about managing things than the party of lightweights and failed public sector workers.
Don't think so - see again virtually every comment I've made today, We are crap at doing things because the Government changes it's mind and cancels things every 5 minutes as soon as a different focus group returns an opinion.
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
Would also note that the two main east west routes in the north (Diggle and Hope Valley)* are also at capacity.
*Ever been in a meeting with train people? You have to use the special train words. Then train people will recognise you as one of their own, and everyone will have great fun showing that they too know the train words. Why say 'the Huddersfield line' or 'the Warrington Central Line' or 'the Burnley Manchester Road' line when you could say 'Diggle' or 'CLC' or 'the Copy Pit line'? Much more fun.
Many many years ago I was (briefly) in charge of Liverpool Street station mails unit, and had to endure regular meetings with British Rail managers. The only good thing about those meetings, in which we reviewed the month’s operational issues including on one occasion a punch up between postal and railway staff, was that we came away thinking that however bad our management challenges were, theirs were worse.
> House Republicans are now voting behind closed doors on whether they want Jim Jordan to continue as their nominee for speaker, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
> Jim Jordan has lost an up or down vote in conference, several members say.
NYT live blog - There will be another candidate forum on Monday night to determine the next speaker nominee, says [Republican Voice of Reason] Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
> House Republicans are now voting behind closed doors on whether they want Jim Jordan to continue as their nominee for speaker, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
> Jim Jordan has lost an up or down vote in conference, several members say.
It's a complicated situation for them, but not that complicated.
They can only lose about 5 votes or so. 90% of them are pretty loony, so it's ok to be a loony. But you cannot be an absolute knob to your colleagues since that will drive away more than 5.
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
NYT live blog - There will be another candidate forum on Monday night to determine the next speaker nominee, says [Republican Voice of Reason] Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.
Seems to me - they’re never going to agree on a nominee.
It must be really chastening for Rishi Sunak, who by any odds has had a remarkably successful and lucrative career, to realise he just isn’t any good at this. Oxford. Fulbright Scholar. Goldman Sachs. Chancellor. First Asian-extraction British PM.
And he just can’t do it. Whatever he tries doesn’t work. How do you get up every morning and start work knowing you’re not going to succeed?
I've been harsh on Sunak in the past and I once said he was a man who had never failed at anything or had known defeat. If you go into politics there's a fair chance that will change.
It could be a positive and character building experience for him and remember he's only 43 (Blair's age in 1997). In twenty years time opinions of him could be very different and he might be the respected elder statesman.
The truth is there may be nothing as ex as an ex-MP (as someone once said) but there's really nothing as ex as an ex-PM. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson - all still with us, all still able to contribute to the national debte but do they? If they do, does anyone listen or are their past sins thrown back at them and used as an excuse to ignore them?
Nope in 20 years time his screwing round with HS2 will be regarded as a sign of utter incompetency highlighting the reduction of the UK's status as it's seen as incompetent...
One of the very first things I was taught in my economics degree was that knowledge is everything so if a skill set is required retaining that knowledge is very important.
Which means that you should have a continual set of projects going (rail electrification. nuclear power station developments, roads....) so that you aren't starting afresh all the time needing to import foreign expertise because no-one in the UK has done this in x0 years
That works fine when the projects you want to build are both economially viable and necessary. There were lots of programmes that could apply to. HS2 was not one of them and indeed it sucked money away from other more important and useful projects.
It’s possible (reasonable even) to argue that HS2 itself was misconceived from the start. But the fact remains that rail transport in this country, both passenger & freight, would benefit greatly from a N<->S high speed passenger rail line. The other routes are full to capacity - the demand is clearly there.
The underlying problem seems to be that we are completely unable to build projects that are of clear economic benefit at all thanks to a Treasury that cannot see beyond the next budget & a planning system that drives up the cost beyond all reasonable measure. The only way to get HS2 through parliament at all was to turn it into some gold-plated national monument to Britain. It’s no way to run a railway, or an economy for that matter.
A high speed rail project like HS2 should cost something like a third the HS2 budget: the HS2 costs are a symptom of wider problems in the UK economy. Every major infrastructure project spends interminable years trapped in a planning system that not only imposes insane costs all by itself, it drives up the cost of the final project by $billions.
The problem being that we need East/West and intra-region capacity a lot more than we need North/South (which actually just means London to the rest of the country). We could find far more useful and viable projects for every penny of that which was going to be spent on HS2 - whether it was the original £37.5 billion or the pre-abandonment £180 billion.
HS2 was the infrastructure equivalent of that old problem that plagues politics.
We must do something This is something We must do it.
Shouldn't have been an either/or! If the UK properly cracked down on the benefit scrounging pensioners (if you want to be voluntarily unemployed fine, but the state shouldn't pay for it) and put the state pension back to 19/20 levels we'd be able to build a new Crossrail every year with the savings.
Just shows where the Tories have gone wrong this parliament - prioritised benefits for the bone idle boomers over capital spending.
Even if it wasn't an either/or it was/is still an unecessary white elephant finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems.
"finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems"
LOL. You keep on saying that, and it gives me a good laugh. Thanks.
If high-speed rail is "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", then why are most major economies in the world (aside from the USA) investing heavily in it? What do you know that they don't?
The pandemic hurt railway usage; but the rebound has been quite staggering. And working from home or telecommuting has not hurt it as much as I feared either. AIUI, long-distance travel is actually up since the end of the pandemic.
Because they are much larger countries where it makes a difference. I am all in favour of a huge expansion in railcapacity but it should not be the High Speed white elephant and it should not be all focused on London. Build more lines going where people want and need to go - more cross country and intra-region. Build more lines suitable for frieght and get stuff off the roads.
That's a different argument, and one I think is also wrong. But it has zero bearing on stupid phrases like "finding yesterday's solutions for the last century's problems", that you are so attached to. HSR is not yesterday's solution, and it is very much trying to help this century's problems in every country where it is built.
"Build more lines going where people want and need to go"
The capacity problem on the southern WCML show that's exactly where people want and need to go. Now, that does not mean I'm against other projects such as NPR or EWR - quite the opposite. We should build them all as part of an integrated network.
"Your desperate attachment to HS2 is illogical and damaging to the economy. "
As if my belief that HS2 is a good idea has any influence! But if you extend that honour to me, I shall do the same to you: your irrational dislike of the project is irrational and hurts the country.
And as for your utter devotion to Brexit over decades - that's hurt the country, financially, politically and economically, orders of magnitude more than any infrastructure project.
Yeah, you just keep believing that. You have consistently ignored the arguments against the economic benefits of HS rail because they don't fit your pre-conceived ideas so I certainly don't expect you to change now. Just like you never changed when you kept denying the massive projected cost increases even when it becaume obvious that they themselves were huge underestinates. I well remember you scorning the idea that costs for it could get anywhere near £85 billion. That seems positively cheap now compared to the final projected costs for the whole thing.
The only good thing out of all of this is that we have finally broken the narrative which was forcing us down the road of a ridiculously expensive waste of money. One thing (perhaps the only one) that I can praise Sunak for. It is just a shame he didn't do it sooner and cancel the whole thing.
I constantly ignore the arguments on the economic benefits of HS rail, as you put it, because many of them are rubbish, pulled out of various anti's odorous posteriors.
Again, if the economic benefits of HS rail are so poor, as you think, then why is every major country, bar the US, building them? What do you know that they do not?
Also remember that the WCML Upgrade of the early 2000s was delivered years late after massive disruption, under-specification (*) and ten times over budget.
(*) No new signalling system and no 140MPH running
LOL. I never knew the OECD was oderous anti. Nor the EU. Both of whom have produced reports showing that HS rail systems in France such as the TGV Mediterranean had little to no impact on overalll GDP and certainly nothing recordable for the region itself.
And just to remind you that you were the one pouring your normal scorn on the £85 billion cost projection a couple of years ago - which is now considered to be an underextomate even by the most ardent advocates of the programme.
Why should we trust you on this when you have been so consistently wrong?
Um I love to know where you are getting your figures from because HS2 costs haven't actually increased. Most people who understand the finances of the project know that Rishi is playing incredibly fast and loose with the finances to justify cancelling HS2.
I really did think you were far more intelligent and far less likely to be taken in than your posts today on HS2 have shown....
So basically you're calling Richard thick and gullible.
As you no doubt think the Guardian's Transport Correspondent is.
From last month, before the cancellation: "When it was first given the go-ahead by the government in 2012, the whole network was supposed to cost £32.7bn, including a north-eastern leg going to Leeds. Exact figures now are hard to pin down but the latest published Department for Transport update said the cost could reach £71bn, at 2019 prices – without any north-eastern leg. Given the official commitment to a spur to the east Midlands, and general inflation since 2019, a current estimated cost of about £100bn at 2023 prices seems reasonable. And that’s before you buy trains. Others believe it could be much higher." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/why-has-hs2-ended-up-being-so-expensive
But the thing to remember is that the WCML sahows that improving existing lines is beyond painful so you need to create completely new ones as that allows you to increase capacity.
And regardless of any desire for a East West connections all 3 North South lines are at capacity so the greatest need is there. Other lines can then follow later...
Would also note that the two main east west routes in the north (Diggle and Hope Valley)* are also at capacity.
*Ever been in a meeting with train people? You have to use the special train words. Then train people will recognise you as one of their own, and everyone will have great fun showing that they too know the train words. Why say 'the Huddersfield line' or 'the Warrington Central Line' or 'the Burnley Manchester Road' line when you could say 'Diggle' or 'CLC' or 'the Copy Pit line'? Much more fun.
Railways, like any industry, is full of insider-jargon. Just go to a computing conference, or one for sewing addicts, or building. Or farming.
I don't follow the area much, but I think the Diggle line is being four-tracked in one area to improve capacity.
HS2 is *on top* of these works; not instead of. And do not make the mistake of thinking that cancelling HS2 has freed up a lot of money that will be spent automagically on your favourite alternative project. It hasn't.
It's a shame for Sunak in a way. He has many qualities that other prime of my adult life have tended to lack. He'd be my pick of the 5 Tory PMs since 2010. None of the snide, casual arrogance of Cameron, the robotic indecision of May, the cakeism of Johnson, the madness of Truss. What can we commend him for?
Assertive without being jingoistic on foreign policy Hardworking Not trying to dismantle our institutions like several of his predecessors did Not power crazed (see above) Thinks properly about decisions Not a reactionary Doesn't suck up to the press Doesn't endlessly bash the BBC (see above)
What odds Kevin McCarthy is back as Speaker next week?
I mean, he provably had the most individual backing we've seen thus far, and was brought down by a mere handful of malcontents. Could at least some of the latter be brought back on board now?
Another Trump defendant just flipped - Ken Chesebro (*), the second "Speedy Trials" defendant in the Georgia Election Interference trial flipped even before Jury Selection, as I was predicting last night.
That just created 5 months of space in the Court schedule for the next batch of the 19 Defendants in the Georgia Case. They will have to do it in 2 or 3 batches defending how many more turn State's Evidence - Georgia only has a Courtroom for six and their teams approx..
Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector scheme (approx UK Equivalent - if someone set up fake Returning Officers to manipulate a result), so now what will the Fake Electors who are charged do?
His penalty for one guilty plea is a $5k fine, 5 years' probation, apology letter, other charges to be treated as Nolle Prosequi (ie not pursued), offender program which will expunge his criminal record in 5 years if pursued, and full cooperation.
It's a shame for Sunak in a way. He has many qualities that other prime of my adult life have tended to lack. He'd be my pick of the 5 Tory PMs since 2010. None of the snide, casual arrogance of Cameron, the robotic indecision of May, the cakeism of Johnson, the madness of Truss. What can we commend him for?
Assertive without being jingoistic on foreign policy Hardworking Not trying to dismantle our institutions like several of his predecessors did Not power crazed (see above) Thinks properly about decisions Not a reactionary Doesn't suck up to the press Doesn't endlessly bash the BBC (see above)
I wouldn't agree with all of those by any means, but I do think he is somewhat lumbered by the situation, though pretty much anyone would have struggled.
Boris wouldn't have played well in 2010, Cameron would not have played well in 2019, but the reverse worked. Sunak might have been better in better times, but, well, them's the breaks. The same could apply to both May and Truss.
It's a shame for Sunak in a way. He has many qualities that other prime of my adult life have tended to lack. He'd be my pick of the 5 Tory PMs since 2010. None of the snide, casual arrogance of Cameron, the robotic indecision of May, the cakeism of Johnson, the madness of Truss. What can we commend him for?
Assertive without being jingoistic on foreign policy Hardworking Not trying to dismantle our institutions like several of his predecessors did Not power crazed (see above) Thinks properly about decisions Not a reactionary Doesn't suck up to the press Doesn't endlessly bash the BBC (see above)
He clearly does not think through his political decisions, or at least not properly. Otherwise yeah, but that makes him all the more disappointing given his decision making as PM.
> “We will have to go back to the drawing board,” fomer Speaker Kevin McCarthy says.
> There’s lots of chatter about Representative Byron Donalds of Florida potentially running for the speakership. He said he “didn’t know” what he’d do, but he didn’t rule it out.
> Representative Kevin Hern said he’ll run for the speakership. His name had been floated when it became clear Jordan didn’t have the votes. Hern said he brings a “different perspective” and believes he can unite the conference.
SSI - do NOT think for a minute (New York or old York) that Jim Jordan and his Wrecking Crew are out of the picture. Cause he and they ain't.
Nor is Steve Scalise IMHO.
Also, personally do NOT expect a new (or old) Speaker of the House will be elected, until after the Great Pumpkin has risen from the Patch.
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Never mind 15 years ago. I expect the figures would have been better the day after the Hamas murder spree (about 10 days before the poll's fieldwork) and Israel has lost friends by blockading and flattening Gaza.
It's a shame for Sunak in a way. He has many qualities that other prime of my adult life have tended to lack. He'd be my pick of the 5 Tory PMs since 2010. None of the snide, casual arrogance of Cameron, the robotic indecision of May, the cakeism of Johnson, the madness of Truss. What can we commend him for?
Assertive without being jingoistic on foreign policy Hardworking Not trying to dismantle our institutions like several of his predecessors did Not power crazed (see above) Thinks properly about decisions Not a reactionary Doesn't suck up to the press Doesn't endlessly bash the BBC (see above)
He clearly does not think through his political decisions, or at least not properly. Otherwise yeah, but that makes him all the more disappointing given his decision making as PM.
And in Georgia, Cheesboro has now also flipped and pled guilty.
That means three of Trump's co-defendants have now pled guilty and will testify against him. Each one that flips increases the pressure on the remaining ones to make a deal rather than risk jail time.
Another Trump defendant just flipped - Ken Chesebro (*), the second "Speedy Trials" defendant in the Georgia Election Interference trial flipped even before Jury Selection, as I was predicting last night.
That just created 5 months of space in the Court schedule for the next batch of the 19 Defendants in the Georgia Case. They will have to do it in 2 or 3 batches defending how many more turn State's Evidence - Georgia only has a Courtroom for six and their teams approx..
Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector scheme (approx UK Equivalent - if someone set up fake Returning Officers to manipulate a result), so now what will the Fake Electors who are charged do?
His penalty for one guilty plea is a $5k fine, 5 years' probation, apology letter, other charges to be treated as Nolle Prosequi (ie not pursued), offender program which will expunge his criminal record in 5 years if pursued, and full cooperation.
Pretty damning opinion of Sunak and his policies, even by Con voters in todays Yougov daily:
That is quite something. A glimmer of hope for Sunak - people are marginally more opposed to his policies than to him per se. I think that's fair actually. Incredibly negative numbers overall though - even from his own party. Do we really have to endure another year of this, maybe longer? Nobody wants these people in power anymore.
Not true. I am quite happy with "these people" in power, even though they are truly suboptimal. It is because the alternative is a lot worse. Sir Boredom will be popular for about a month before everyone realises that the Tories (even under the fat buffoon) know more about managing things than the party of lightweights and failed public sector workers.
Gosh. Assuming you’re not trolling (which I’m not suggesting you are) you must have a truly abysmal opinion of SKS to feel that the current lot are less useless at managing things than he would be.
And in Georgia, Cheesboro has now also flipped and pled guilty.
That means three of Trump's co-defendants have now pled guilty and will testify against him. Each one that flips increases the pressure on the remaining ones to make a deal rather than risk jail time.
Breaking rocks in the hot sun Trump fought the law and the law won Trump fought the law and the ... law won
What idiot thought selling of social housing for peanuts was a good idea?
The idea of selling council stock was a good one.
Central government nicking most of the proceeds, and legislating to prevent councils building more to replace it was utter idiocy - motivated purely by Thatcher's dislike of local government. But then left unchanged by her successors.
The problem is not so much the lack of social housing as the lack of housing overall. Had much more been built, to meet demand, prices would never have soared as they have in both rental and purchase sectors.
You do need lots of properly funded social housing. If the residential property space is nearly all private sector you're too much in the hands of developers, financiers and landlords whose priorities are not aligned to what should be our national objective: a decent affordable place to live for everybody, homes as homes not money making instruments.
If you have a shortage of housing, then you will have people living in tiny, shitty properties. Plenty of evidence historically.
If you don't want that, do what the Victorians and Edwardians did. Build whole towns and suburbs, with actual space for people to live.
The ownership is next to immaterial - look at how much council accommodation is flipped into the rental sector.
We do need to increase supply - very much so - but doing only that won't solve the housing crisis. It will help a lot but it won't anywhere near meet the aspiration of a decent affordable home for everyone. The split between private and public sector is also important (if we do have this aspiration). We need a good sized, well funded social housing sector to serve people who can't afford to buy or rent in the private sector. There'll always be plenty of these (unless we're planning a radical overhaul of our whole economic model).
If you have adequate supply, prices will fall. A long way. Check out other countries which dot have housing shortages.
Trying to “wall off” public sector housing as cheaper just creates a subletting market.
I'll pass over your 2nd para (nitpicking imo) in order to agree strongly with the 1st - yes yes yes we must build build build. Increase supply wrt demand and all other things being equal prices will fall. Which we definitely want. It's a crazy unhealthy unfair situation we've allowed to develop.
Although prices are falling now, as it happens, not because of lots of new product but because we're into a new era of 5% money - triple what everyone had got used to. So it looks like we're getting those lower prices anyway. Fwiw I'm expecting a one third fall in real terms over the next 2 to 3 years, half in nominal terms, inflation doing the work for the other half.
If prices fall by a third, then supply is unlikely to increase - unless you can find ways of building for cheaper.
Perfectly possible to get increasing supply in a market with falling prices.
Which is why Panasonic, Sony etc are making televisions on a vast scale.
The new build sale market relies on properties being sold at a premium and a profit margin for the developer of 20% being achieved on the project, and also for them to take risks in doing it, being able to borrow money cheaply etc. None of these conditions are in place at the moment.
Yes, it's a great central point that we need to build far more houses but people are being a little too simplistic and evangelical in making out that (i) it's easy to do that with the private sector business model we have and (ii) that even if we do manage it the housing crisis gets voila solved. The government has to roll its sleeves up and get in there, acting for the long term, changing the way we look at and fund residential property.
Countries without housing shortages manage to build lots of properties. Therefore we need to do what those Dastardly Furrrineeers do.
We need to remove the bottlenecks in the supply chain of housing. Currently we have permissions stacking up. The reason is largely oligopoly in the property construction market. It is noticeable that in areas where there isn't that oligopoly and substitution is possible - flats in various areas of London - the throttling of the build process is much less evident.
Most don't explicit government intervention in the housing market to play games with price - apart from the usual planning stuff and some social housing.
Again, I 100% agree Supply is key - but there other important factors. We've touched on a few: Rates. Social Housing. Developers Business Practices. Private Sector Landlords. Financialization vs Place To Live. It's not just Supply. We have a particular (and rather weird) approach to the whole topic in this country. It reminds me of our private schools fetish slightly. I think it comes from the same place. I don't suppose you know what I'm talking about. I wonder if I do? Yes, I think so but one can never be sure.
But ok, there's only one way to finish this, forget all of the above and let me say here and now with no clutter or caveat - we should BUILD MORE HOUSES. There.
It's a bit like tulips. Mad scarcity vs demand and they become a financial instrument. Sufficient supply and they go back to being nice flowers.
Oh no you couldn't leave it, could you. I gave you an elegant judicious closer but you have to say something else.
Ok, cute analogy but Yes and No. It's not just the supply deficit that has led to our bizarre unhealthy irrational approach to residential property. There are those other factors I've mentioned. They're important. Trust me they are.
No, they're not.
Its entirely the supply shortage.
Without the supply shortage, all the other factors you mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
Take private sector landlords for instance: If there's an abundance of supply then a private sector landlord that holds a property that is put on the market for too much (or in poor quality) then the potential tenants have the ability to ignore that landlord and go elsewhere instead leaving the landlord paying tax on the land he's holding without a tenant to pay for it.
You're bending the real world into a shape to suit your doctrine. But ok, solution, let's see if the new normal of interest rates triple what everybody got used to does or doesn't lead to a big and permanent real terms drop in house prices. If you're right that only supply matters it won't. If I'm right that other factors, like the cost of money, also matter it will. I think that's better than trying to grind out a result on here.
High interest rates just puts a cap on the *price* of housing. The actual cost per month will probably be the same, since too many people are chasing too few properties.
So the telephone number prices will come down a bit. The people paying mortgages (their own or other people’s) won’t see much relief.
> Meanwhile, it’s hard to overstate how spitting mad conservatives are. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida says Jordan was “knifed by secret ballot, anonymously, in a closed-door meeting in the bowels of the Capitol.” Gaetz says, “This was truly swamp tactics on display.”
SSI - Pretty rich coming from a guy who wallows in filth personal & public AND is totally full of shit.]
> Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee said it was “absurd” that Republicans were going home for the weekend instead of restarting the process immediately. He added that a majority of the members in the conference shouted “No!” when the schedule was announced. “We’re not done, and we shouldn’t be leaving,” he said.
> Representative Marc Molinaro, who voted against Jordan on the third ballot, said that Jordan told the conference after the vote that if they wanted to start the process over he would support their decision. He received a standing ovation.
SSI - What Coach Jockstrap did NOT say, was that he would NOT be a candidate if, or rather when, the "process" as they laughingly call it, resumes, whenever that is.
BTW, appears that JJ and his fellow Rabid Flying Squirrels want a weekend recess, so that there will be more time for death threats and other brownshirt shenanigans against GOP holdouts, and waverers.
Interesting post from ConHome. I very rarely go there and schadenfreude is a terrible emotion but it's been a long 13 years so I beg your understanding...
Having been involved in canvassing in Tamworth, aside from the obvious disgust with the conduct of Pincher, the complaints I heard were overwhelming about the lies and incompetence of Johnson and Truss, the failure to deliver public services and, above all, the struggle to survive week by week that is not a product of inflation but a pre-existing issue to do with lack of growth, wage stagnation and taxation. People are also feeling much bolder about describing Brexit as a mistake. One man told me that we should "grow up and stop exaggerating gender stuff".
No-one mentioned immigration or net zero to me. That's not to say it wasn't raised. Few felt any love for Rishi.
I see a lot of posters here demanding more action on immigration and a move to cutting the State. I think that Starmer would welcome that. Much as many here would like it to be, the United Kingdom electorate are not right wing to the extent that some seem to hope and now that the economic pain, waiting lists and deteroting infrastructure is affecting not just our traditional scapegoats people see the effects for themselves.
My own feeling is that 2024 is lost and that a lurch further right will lose 2029 too.
The issue is not traditional Conservative policy. The issues are gross incompetence amongst the current parliamentary party, a series of poor economic decisions (not least Brexit), the foolishness of giving power to Johnson and simple longevity in power.
If the Tories have any sense they'd do well to listen to this kind of analysis. Mind you, if the Tories had any sense neither they nor the country would be in the absolute state they are now.
Translation: I'd never vote Tory, but I'd like them to align with all my political views, and then lose bigly in the election so my guy can come in, kthxbye.
There is a common feeling of despair among habitual Conservative voters despite 13 years in government. This is curious but I *think* that these voters feel that although their party has long been in government it has not been in power. If that makes any sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. I see this as very simple, the Conservative Party is an organisation with a settled right wing view, but a good proportion of its parliamentarians are convinced corporatist centrists who want to expand the power of the state and of supranational institutions. A smaller band are the keepers of the Tory flame, and the majority are in the middle and are a bunch of jellies who will go where the wind (and personal advancement) take them.
A basic, right leaning, responsible Government would do the job here. Even in the space of a year I think the country could be set on the right track. I'm also not looking for us to deliberately sass the Americans or invade France, or sack all of the Civil Service - politics is the art of the possible, and Britain/England has always been confined by internal and external factors, it was the same in Elizabeth I's day. But this bunch aren't negotiating the obstacles, they're simple sellouts. They are full speed ahead to IMF town. And full speed ahead to crashing Tory defeat - any Tory MP with a survival instinct should be dusting down their typewriter.
Ironic that in Tamworth right-wing parties got 50% of the vote.
Barely 35% in Mid-Beds.
35% was still more than Labour got there though.
RefUK are heading for about 6-7%, maybe higher. The highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since UKIP got 12% in 2015
In a seat where the Tories polled 60% in 2019, people are trying to present several right-wing parties managing 35% between them as some kind of positive result?
And in Georgia, Cheesboro has now also flipped and pled guilty.
That means three of Trump's co-defendants have now pled guilty and will testify against him. Each one that flips increases the pressure on the remaining ones to make a deal rather than risk jail time.
Breaking rocks in the hot sun Trump fought the law and the law won Trump fought the law and the ... law won
If we are doing Clash/Trump songs I bet the Donald is praying “Rudie can’t fail”.
Ironic that in Tamworth right-wing parties got 50% of the vote.
Barely 35% in Mid-Beds.
35% was still more than Labour got there though.
RefUK are heading for about 6-7%, maybe higher. The highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since UKIP got 12% in 2015
In a seat where the Tories polled 60% in 2019, people are trying to present several right-wing parties managing 35% between them as some kind of positive result?
Another Trump defendant just flipped - Ken Chesebro (*), the second "Speedy Trials" defendant in the Georgia Election Interference trial flipped even before Jury Selection, as I was predicting last night.
That just created 5 months of space in the Court schedule for the next batch of the 19 Defendants in the Georgia Case. They will have to do it in 2 or 3 batches defending how many more turn State's Evidence - Georgia only has a Courtroom for six and their teams approx..
Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector scheme (approx UK Equivalent - if someone set up fake Returning Officers to manipulate a result), so now what will the Fake Electors who are charged do?
His penalty for one guilty plea is a $5k fine, 5 years' probation, apology letter, other charges to be treated as Nolle Prosequi (ie not pursued), offender program which will expunge his criminal record in 5 years if pursued, and full cooperation.
(* Why can't Yanks put the required number of silent letters in their Names?)
I suspect with the choice of a small fine or guaranteed jail time most of the other defendants are going to take the plea bargain. Which may mean Trump and Rudy Giuliani end up in Georgia as the primaries kick off..
Interesting post from ConHome. I very rarely go there and schadenfreude is a terrible emotion but it's been a long 13 years so I beg your understanding...
Having been involved in canvassing in Tamworth, aside from the obvious disgust with the conduct of Pincher, the complaints I heard were overwhelming about the lies and incompetence of Johnson and Truss, the failure to deliver public services and, above all, the struggle to survive week by week that is not a product of inflation but a pre-existing issue to do with lack of growth, wage stagnation and taxation. People are also feeling much bolder about describing Brexit as a mistake. One man told me that we should "grow up and stop exaggerating gender stuff".
No-one mentioned immigration or net zero to me. That's not to say it wasn't raised. Few felt any love for Rishi.
I see a lot of posters here demanding more action on immigration and a move to cutting the State. I think that Starmer would welcome that. Much as many here would like it to be, the United Kingdom electorate are not right wing to the extent that some seem to hope and now that the economic pain, waiting lists and deteroting infrastructure is affecting not just our traditional scapegoats people see the effects for themselves.
My own feeling is that 2024 is lost and that a lurch further right will lose 2029 too.
The issue is not traditional Conservative policy. The issues are gross incompetence amongst the current parliamentary party, a series of poor economic decisions (not least Brexit), the foolishness of giving power to Johnson and simple longevity in power.
If the Tories have any sense they'd do well to listen to this kind of analysis. Mind you, if the Tories had any sense neither they nor the country would be in the absolute state they are now.
Translation: I'd never vote Tory, but I'd like them to align with all my political views, and then lose bigly in the election so my guy can come in, kthxbye.
There is a common feeling of despair among habitual Conservative voters despite 13 years in government. This is curious but I *think* that these voters feel that although their party has long been in government it has not been in power. If that makes any sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. I see this as very simple, the Conservative Party is an organisation with a settled right wing view, but a good proportion of its parliamentarians are convinced corporatist centrists who want to expand the power of the state and of supranational institutions. A smaller band are the keepers of the Tory flame, and the majority are in the middle and are a bunch of jellies who will go where the wind (and personal advancement) take them.
A basic, right leaning, responsible Government would do the job here. Even in the space of a year I think the country could be set on the right track. I'm also not looking for us to deliberately sass the Americans or invade France, or sack all of the Civil Service - politics is the art of the possible, and Britain/England has always been confined by internal and external factors, it was the same in Elizabeth I's day. But this bunch aren't negotiating the obstacles, they're simple sellouts. They are full speed ahead to IMF town. And full speed ahead to crashing Tory defeat - any Tory MP with a survival instinct should be dusting down their typewriter.
To do what? There is little chance that a letter to get rid of Rishi is going to give them a leader more likely to help them save their seat - the only thing it would do is shift the party even further into it's current right-wing UKIP tendency.
Ironic that in Tamworth right-wing parties got 50% of the vote.
Barely 35% in Mid-Beds.
35% was still more than Labour got there though.
RefUK are heading for about 6-7%, maybe higher. The highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since UKIP got 12% in 2015
Do you think 6-7% is realistic?
RefUK got 5.4% in Tamworth and just under 3.7% in Mid Beds. Referendum results in the most relevant Council areas suggest Mid Beds had a higher Leave vote than the country as a whole, while Tamworth was MUCH higher (about two-thirds). They got 3.7% and 3.4% in Selby and Somerton, both of which were more Leave-leaning than the country as a whole.
I know by-elections are odd and smaller parties tend to get squeezed. But, equally, they are a bit more of a free hit for (in this case) Tories who are a bit annoyed with the blues but can't vote Labour. And the by-election seats recently happen to have been relatively Leave-leaning (and in Tamworth's case, very strongly Leave).
I can't really see them breaking 5% nationally, even if they stand in all constituencies. That's still irritating for the Tories - Jimmy Goldsmith's Referendum Party probably cost the Tories seats at the margins in 1997 with their 2.6% showing. But I'd personally be surprised if they got as much as 6-7%.
Ironic that in Tamworth right-wing parties got 50% of the vote.
Barely 35% in Mid-Beds.
35% was still more than Labour got there though.
RefUK are heading for about 6-7%, maybe higher. The highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since UKIP got 12% in 2015
Do you think 6-7% is realistic?
RefUK got 5.4% in Tamworth and just under 3.7% in Mid Beds. Referendum results in the most relevant Council areas suggest Mid Beds had a higher Leave vote than the country as a whole, while Tamworth was MUCH higher (about two-thirds). They got 3.7% and 3.4% in Selby and Somerton, both of which were more Leave-leaning than the country as a whole.
I know by-elections are odd and smaller parties tend to get squeezed. But, equally, they are a bit more of a free hit for (in this case) Tories who are a bit annoyed with the blues but can't vote Labour. And the by-election seats recently happen to have been relatively Leave-leaning (and in Tamworth's case, very strongly Leave).
I can't really see them breaking 5% nationally, even if they stand in all constituencies. That's still irritating for the Tories - Jimmy Goldsmith's Referendum Party probably cost the Tories seats at the margins in 1997 with their 2.6% showing. But I'd personally be surprised if they got as much as 6-7%.
And in Georgia, Cheesboro has now also flipped and pled guilty.
That means three of Trump's co-defendants have now pled guilty and will testify against him. Each one that flips increases the pressure on the remaining ones to make a deal rather than risk jail time.
Breaking rocks in the hot sun Trump fought the law and the law won Trump fought the law and the ... law won
If we are doing Clash/Trump songs I bet the Donald is praying “Rudie can’t fail”.
And in Georgia, Cheesboro has now also flipped and pled guilty.
That means three of Trump's co-defendants have now pled guilty and will testify against him. Each one that flips increases the pressure on the remaining ones to make a deal rather than risk jail time.
Breaking rocks in the hot sun Trump fought the law and the law won Trump fought the law and the ... law won
If we are doing Clash/Trump songs I bet the Donald is praying “Rudie can’t fail”.
GA prosecutor ain't gonna give Rudy Giuliani a plea deal, he's a got a legal bullseye on his back just like Trump.
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
I am puzzled as to why it should be assumed that the USA would send weapons to Israel. Israel is a wealthy country with a well-supplied army. It has been grievously attacked, but it's not currently defending itself against an invasion, rather it's about to conduct an invasion of sorts. Is it just the form now that when an ally goes to war we have to all have a whip round? I wasn't around during the Falklands but I'm pretty sure we had to buy our own munitions.
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Another Trump defendant just flipped - Ken Chesebro (*), the second "Speedy Trials" defendant in the Georgia Election Interference trial flipped even before Jury Selection, as I was predicting last night.
That just created 5 months of space in the Court schedule for the next batch of the 19 Defendants in the Georgia Case. They will have to do it in 2 or 3 batches defending how many more turn State's Evidence - Georgia only has a Courtroom for six and their teams approx..
Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector scheme (approx UK Equivalent - if someone set up fake Returning Officers to manipulate a result), so now what will the Fake Electors who are charged do?
His penalty for one guilty plea is a $5k fine, 5 years' probation, apology letter, other charges to be treated as Nolle Prosequi (ie not pursued), offender program which will expunge his criminal record in 5 years if pursued, and full cooperation.
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Interesting post from ConHome. I very rarely go there and schadenfreude is a terrible emotion but it's been a long 13 years so I beg your understanding...
Having been involved in canvassing in Tamworth, aside from the obvious disgust with the conduct of Pincher, the complaints I heard were overwhelming about the lies and incompetence of Johnson and Truss, the failure to deliver public services and, above all, the struggle to survive week by week that is not a product of inflation but a pre-existing issue to do with lack of growth, wage stagnation and taxation. People are also feeling much bolder about describing Brexit as a mistake. One man told me that we should "grow up and stop exaggerating gender stuff".
No-one mentioned immigration or net zero to me. That's not to say it wasn't raised. Few felt any love for Rishi.
I see a lot of posters here demanding more action on immigration and a move to cutting the State. I think that Starmer would welcome that. Much as many here would like it to be, the United Kingdom electorate are not right wing to the extent that some seem to hope and now that the economic pain, waiting lists and deteroting infrastructure is affecting not just our traditional scapegoats people see the effects for themselves.
My own feeling is that 2024 is lost and that a lurch further right will lose 2029 too.
The issue is not traditional Conservative policy. The issues are gross incompetence amongst the current parliamentary party, a series of poor economic decisions (not least Brexit), the foolishness of giving power to Johnson and simple longevity in power.
If the Tories have any sense they'd do well to listen to this kind of analysis. Mind you, if the Tories had any sense neither they nor the country would be in the absolute state they are now.
Translation: I'd never vote Tory, but I'd like them to align with all my political views, and then lose bigly in the election so my guy can come in, kthxbye.
There is a common feeling of despair among habitual Conservative voters despite 13 years in government. This is curious but I *think* that these voters feel that although their party has long been in government it has not been in power. If that makes any sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. I see this as very simple, the Conservative Party is an organisation with a settled right wing view, but a good proportion of its parliamentarians are convinced corporatist centrists who want to expand the power of the state and of supranational institutions. A smaller band are the keepers of the Tory flame, and the majority are in the middle and are a bunch of jellies who will go where the wind (and personal advancement) take them.
A basic, right leaning, responsible Government would do the job here. Even in the space of a year I think the country could be set on the right track. I'm also not looking for us to deliberately sass the Americans or invade France, or sack all of the Civil Service - politics is the art of the possible, and Britain/England has always been confined by internal and external factors, it was the same in Elizabeth I's day. But this bunch aren't negotiating the obstacles, they're simple sellouts. They are full speed ahead to IMF town. And full speed ahead to crashing Tory defeat - any Tory MP with a survival instinct should be dusting down their typewriter.
To do what? There is little chance that a letter to get rid of Rishi is going to give them a leader more likely to help them save their seat - the only thing it would do is shift the party even further into it's current right-wing UKIP tendency.
That's a given anyway. Changing leader would be a last roll of the dice. No point in not trying it really.
Actually, more I think about it, Rudy G just MIGHT get offered opportunity to cop a plea - and take it.
He has a betrayal (just ask his wives) and skipping out after LOTS of tough talk. For example, in 2000 when he was too chickenshit to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senate.
AND his potential testimony against You Know Who would be even more damning that Michael Cohen's.
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Trump. Putin. Without even thinking.
Sure, and at least Netanyahu accepts the results of elections. Sort of.
1 - Trump violated a Court Order, by failing to remove an abusive story he posted about a Court Clerk (claimed she was the girlfriend of a Democratic Senator - red meat to his mob) from the internet.
He removed one copy and left another one online.
Emergency Court Hearing incoming. Judge asked the lawyer "Why should I not put your client in jail?" - for what we would call Contempt of Court.
2 - Rudi Giuliani has failed to provide his financial details in his separate defamation trial - he was one who accused two election workers of falsifying vote counts.
He has just failed to engage so the judge has ruled him liable, and will instruct to Jury which will set damages and punitive damages to make maximalist assumptions.
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know. 2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Turns out that Cheezy Bro was born in Wisconsin. So he IS a Damned Yankee.
That plus fact he's being grilled to a rich golden brown by State of Georgia, vindicates the honor of the South.
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know. 2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
It's a very weird approach. It's a complex mix, and current leadership has to take blame, but you cannot pretend it happened in a vacuum or disavow the person you chose to run things and did what you told them to do. They could argue he's ruined things since, but you can't simultaneously blame him for the actions at Boris's direction as PM, it's not credible he was running his own show the whole time.
Truss has more of a case, since she was there so briefly - her impact is about reputation trashing, but the Sunak mission was to overcome that.
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know. 2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
I'm pretty sure it is generally understood that the current party leader is responsible for their party's performance in by-elections, surprised that cretin Peston needed a reminder.
We hear some claim it's "like 1997" while others claim it's more like 1974. Given every election is unique the best you can hope for is to try and draw whatever you can from the past without relying on it too much.
To be 17-20 points ahead a year before polling day would, you'd think, be a difficult place from which to fail to win. In May 2009, David Cameron's Conservatives enjoyed 17-20 point leads over Labour. They started from just 198 MPs (210 if you consider favourable boundary changes) but the polls suggested a landslide.
That didn't happen as we know but not because the Government vote recovered strongly (27% became 29%) but because the Conservative vote fell back from 45% to 36%. The LD went from 17% to 23%.
That won't happen this time - it's hard to see the LDs getting much further than 15%. What may damage the Conservatives more is good old Abe Stention - a reduced turnout putting the motivated Labour vote to good use in dozens of constituencies.
The past is, though, a foreign country and no one can assume what the next 12 months will produce. The Conservatives will embrace their inner Micawber and hope for "something to turn up". Apart from that, it becomes desperation and defiance - no going quietly into the night it would seem. If we are to believe the Danny Krugers of this world the only tactic left is to try and create dividing lines but on more peripheral issues. Will that work?
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Trump. Putin. Without even thinking.
Yes, also Kim, Xi, that fella in Iran...
Or maybe Roger meant 'democratic' politician. Which is kind of the glaring discrepancy at the heart of this conflict.
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know. 2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
I'm pretty sure it is generally understood that the current party leader is responsible for their party's performance in by-elections, surprised that cretin Peston needed a reminder.
You're not reading it properly. Mr Peston is obviously being ironic.
Ironic that in Tamworth right-wing parties got 50% of the vote.
Barely 35% in Mid-Beds.
35% was still more than Labour got there though.
RefUK are heading for about 6-7%, maybe higher. The highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since UKIP got 12% in 2015
Do you think 6-7% is realistic?
RefUK got 5.4% in Tamworth and just under 3.7% in Mid Beds. Referendum results in the most relevant Council areas suggest Mid Beds had a higher Leave vote than the country as a whole, while Tamworth was MUCH higher (about two-thirds). They got 3.7% and 3.4% in Selby and Somerton, both of which were more Leave-leaning than the country as a whole.
I know by-elections are odd and smaller parties tend to get squeezed. But, equally, they are a bit more of a free hit for (in this case) Tories who are a bit annoyed with the blues but can't vote Labour. And the by-election seats recently happen to have been relatively Leave-leaning (and in Tamworth's case, very strongly Leave).
I can't really see them breaking 5% nationally, even if they stand in all constituencies. That's still irritating for the Tories - Jimmy Goldsmith's Referendum Party probably cost the Tories seats at the margins in 1997 with their 2.6% showing. But I'd personally be surprised if they got as much as 6-7%.
I know, but I don't believe that will convert to real votes at the General Election, partly because results in by-elections and local elections have been quite modest, and partly because I suspect quite a few annoyed Tories who say they will vote RefUK to pollsters will think better of it, whereas the upside for them is less.
In the 2015 election to which you refer, UKIP got 12.6% - but they'd actually won a couple of Parliamentary by-elections ahead of that (admittedly resigning defectors) and secured some strong second places in others. They had won several hundred council seats over a few years. Now I know you're not suggesting they'll be up to quite that level, but we're just not seeing anything like that today.
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know. 2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Turns out that Cheezy Bro was born in Wisconsin. So he IS a Damned Yankee.
That plus fact he's being grilled to a rich golden brown by State of Georgia, vindicates the honor of the South.
AND get's YOU off the hook down at the rib shack.
You and your false allegations.
I'll sue YOU for defamation next
(Though in all of this I think Robert is the most prominent PB character in the Jurisdiction of the Court, so we'd better continue to be highly restrained.)
The NZ fella has brought a big bit of wood on to the pitch with him. I enjoy the little dances that the South Pacific nations do before their games, but I don't really see why the other side ahould have to stand and watch. I quite liked David Campese's approach of practicing his kicking until they'd got it over with. He got into trouble for 'not respecting the haka'. But I don't think it's terribly respectful to do a little war dance at your opponenta before you start.
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know. 2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
Independents are the most sceptical group. I wouldn't have foreseen that.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
Netanyahu is poison. If there's a less attractive world politician I can't think who it is
Turns out that Cheezy Bro was born in Wisconsin. So he IS a Damned Yankee.
That plus fact he's being grilled to a rich golden brown by State of Georgia, vindicates the honor of the South.
> Meanwhile, it’s hard to overstate how spitting mad conservatives are. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida says Jordan was “knifed by secret ballot, anonymously, in a closed-door meeting in the bowels of the Capitol.” Gaetz says, “This was truly swamp tactics on display.”
SSI - Pretty rich coming from a guy who wallows in filth personal & public AND is totally full of shit.]
> Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee said it was “absurd” that Republicans were going home for the weekend instead of restarting the process immediately. He added that a majority of the members in the conference shouted “No!” when the schedule was announced. “We’re not done, and we shouldn’t be leaving,” he said.
> Representative Marc Molinaro, who voted against Jordan on the third ballot, said that Jordan told the conference after the vote that if they wanted to start the process over he would support their decision. He received a standing ovation.
SSI - What Coach Jockstrap did NOT say, was that he would NOT be a candidate if, or rather when, the "process" as they laughingly call it, resumes, whenever that is.
BTW, appears that JJ and his fellow Rabid Flying Squirrels want a weekend recess, so that there will be more time for death threats and other brownshirt shenanigans against GOP holdouts, and waverers.
The lack of self awareness from people like Gaetz is quite astonishing.
Comments
You are part of a cul de sac in practical terms but I imagine you feel a great sense of privacy too.
Its entirely the supply shortage.
Without the supply shortage, all the other factors you mentioned wouldn't be relevant.
Take private sector landlords for instance: If there's an abundance of supply then a private sector landlord that holds a property that is put on the market for too much (or in poor quality) then the potential tenants have the ability to ignore that landlord and go elsewhere instead leaving the landlord paying tax on the land he's holding without a tenant to pay for it.
*Ever been in a meeting with train people? You have to use the special train words. Then train people will recognise you as one of their own, and everyone will have great fun showing that they too know the train words. Why say 'the Huddersfield line' or 'the Warrington Central Line' or 'the Burnley Manchester Road' line when you could say 'Diggle' or 'CLC' or 'the Copy Pit line'? Much more fun.
In my parents day, you bought a house to live in. When you sold it, if you did well, did it up etc, you got your money back. By paying off the mortgage, you got a place to live for free at the end of your working life.
Shit houses didn’t sell for good (or sometimes any) money. So you were damn careful to try and avoid them.
I’ve watched over the years as housing turned into a one way, double digit return a year, guaranteed investment. And the market became exactly like all the other markets in guaranteed, double digit return investments. Full of bullshit, chancers and waiting for the bang…. Except that this one was supported by the force of law.
(And it's a toy one, not an actual stuffed one, albeit with kangaroo fur for the skin, which was/is a pest species anyway, like making your cuddly octopus from rat fur I suppose).
It's not like our HoC Speaker,
Would Tory MPs vote Starmer for PM?
Like it or not the Dems have a responsibility.
I see they were built by the architect of the Sydney Opera House, which is 50 years old today.
The interiors look good too:
http://www.utzonphotos.com/guide-to-utzon/projects/fredensborghusene/
A Czech parish priest has apologised to local children after stomping on Halloween pumpkins near his church.
Father Jaromir Smejkal destroyed the carved pumpkins on two successive days in a park in Kurdejov, a village in the wine-making region of South Moravia.
He has apologised for the vandalism in an open letter to the mayor and published on the village Facebook page.
He said he would have acted differently had he known they were carved by children.
"Leaving the rectory on Sunday evening, I saw numerous symbols of the satanic feast of 'Halloween' placed in front of our sacred grounds," he wrote.
"I acted according to my faith and duty to be a father and protector of the children entrusted to me and removed these symbols," said Father Smejkal, parish priest at the Roman Catholic Church of St John the Baptist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67168388
Here is a hint Bart, how about spending less time on her and spend some time building a business? When it is really successful you can take out an eye watering mortgage and buy a bigger house, or even an additional one on the coast. It is called capitalism.
Alternatively, you can be a socialist and be envious of people that have things that you do not.
The Republicans won the House and it is their responsibility to elect a Speaker (who is basically someone to lead them). Imagine the Tories or Labour refusing to elect a Prime Minister.
In the US House you can have a Speaker who isn't even a Representative, so Trump or Liz Cheney or anyone could be Speaker.
If the GOP can't choose a leader it is open to them to come to a power sharing agreement with the Dems. The easiest way out of the impasse is for a moderate Republican to be put forward as Speaker with a few concessions to the Dems. It's time for the Republican majority to stop bowing down to Matt Gaetz and his handful of anarchists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kZXqvHQZa4&ab_channel=FreestyleDigitalMedia
(Peter Collins is the absoute ringer for my father...)
Or are the Tories now going to advocate PR if they can't win under FPTP?
That compares with the £32.7bn original estimate when the go-ahead was given in 2012, which when you strip out the already abandoned leg to Leeds would have left something in the ball park of £25m for the rest of the network.
So even the official estimate now is already consistent with a fourfold increase in HS2 costs on a like-for-like network basis. You can't explain the vast majority of that by the change from a 2012 to a 2023 price base - that is, general inflation over the past 11 years.
The justification for HS2 was never originally about capacity. It is the high speed element that is responsible for much of the extraordinary cost.
If they supported Jordan (election denier, Trump supporter etc) they could well lose re-election.
Of course they could also be primaried if they supported Hakeem.
I'd expect them to be looking for a compromise.
There's also a deadline looming with regard to the shutdown, those are unpopular.
"Adjournment Debate on Trends in Excess Deaths
Andrew Bridgen MP"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E44Mg67d_no
Is everything reported in the 'mainstream media'?
Should everything be?
What counts as the 'mainstream' media?
HS2 when completed would significantly increase the capacity on all 3 existing lines (because with the express trains removed all the other trains would run at the same speed allowing a lot more trains to run on the route) while both significantly reducing journey times and increase capacity on the fast routes (because the new trains will be twice the length of the old ones).
"The Government has evaluated these proposals in respect of their costs and benefits
for enhancing capacity and connectivity in a sustainable way, which is its key
strategic objective for inter-city transport"
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228887/7827.pdf
The high speed element was always the best way of increasing capacity, taking away the hugely capacity draining high speed trains away from the freight and commuter services.
"On February 4, 2021, he joined 10 other House Republicans voting with all voting Democrats to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her House Education and Labor Committee, and House Budget Committee assignments in response to conspiratorial and violent statements she had made."
Many many years ago I was (briefly) in charge of Liverpool Street station mails unit, and had to endure regular meetings with British Rail managers. The only good thing about those meetings, in which we reviewed the month’s operational issues including on one occasion a punch up between postal and railway staff, was that we came away thinking that however bad our management challenges were, theirs were worse.
They even served up powdered instant tea.
Cricket World Cup 2023 crowds: Why are some matches so poorly attended?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/67118882
> House Republicans are now voting behind closed doors on whether they want Jim Jordan to continue as their nominee for speaker, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
> Jim Jordan has lost an up or down vote in conference, several members say.
They can only lose about 5 votes or so.
90% of them are pretty loony, so it's ok to be a loony.
But you cannot be an absolute knob to your colleagues since that will drive away more than 5.
Now this won't affect what happens on the ground in Israel (as Israel has plenty of munitions), but, it's a measure of how Israel has dropped the ball in terms of US public opinion. Fifteen years ago, I suspect the numbers would have been 70:30 in favour of aid.
I note your note on east-west routes. Which is why we should do those as well. In fact, there is some work ongoing to improve capacity on the Hope Valley line:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/north-and-east/the-hope-valley-railway-upgrade/
I don't follow the area much, but I think the Diggle line is being four-tracked in one area to improve capacity.
HS2 is *on top* of these works; not instead of. And do not make the mistake of thinking that cancelling HS2 has freed up a lot of money that will be spent automagically on your favourite alternative project. It hasn't.
Assertive without being jingoistic on foreign policy
Hardworking
Not trying to dismantle our institutions like several of his predecessors did
Not power crazed (see above)
Thinks properly about decisions
Not a reactionary
Doesn't suck up to the press
Doesn't endlessly bash the BBC (see above)
That just created 5 months of space in the Court schedule for the next batch of the 19 Defendants in the Georgia Case. They will have to do it in 2 or 3 batches defending how many more turn State's Evidence - Georgia only has a Courtroom for six and their teams approx..
Chesebro was the architect of the fake elector scheme (approx UK Equivalent - if someone set up fake Returning Officers to manipulate a result), so now what will the Fake Electors who are charged do?
His penalty for one guilty plea is a $5k fine, 5 years' probation, apology letter, other charges to be treated as Nolle Prosequi (ie not pursued), offender program which will expunge his criminal record in 5 years if pursued, and full cooperation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvS9baTHAU
(* Why can't Yanks put the required number of silent letters in their Names?)
We don't need editorial balance between truth and bonkers anti-vaxxers.
Boris wouldn't have played well in 2010, Cameron would not have played well in 2019, but the reverse worked. Sunak might have been better in better times, but, well, them's the breaks. The same could apply to both May and Truss.
> “We will have to go back to the drawing board,” fomer Speaker Kevin McCarthy says.
> There’s lots of chatter about Representative Byron Donalds of Florida potentially running for the speakership. He said he “didn’t know” what he’d do, but he didn’t rule it out.
> Representative Kevin Hern said he’ll run for the speakership. His name had been floated when it became clear Jordan didn’t have the votes. Hern said he brings a “different perspective” and believes he can unite the conference.
SSI - do NOT think for a minute (New York or old York) that Jim Jordan and his Wrecking Crew are out of the picture. Cause he and they ain't.
Nor is Steve Scalise IMHO.
Also, personally do NOT expect a new (or old) Speaker of the House will be elected, until after the Great Pumpkin has risen from the Patch.
To clarify, I do NOT mean Donald Trump!
That means three of Trump's co-defendants have now pled guilty and will testify against him. Each one that flips increases the pressure on the remaining ones to make a deal rather than risk jail time.
Plenty of Chesebroughs and similar across the USA with loads of superfluous letters, olde English style.
BTW, believe that this guy pronounces his surname "Cheezy Bro" which is certainly apt.
RefUK are heading for about 6-7%, maybe higher. The highest voteshare for a party right of the Tories since UKIP got 12% in 2015
Trump fought the law and the law won
Trump fought the law and the ... law won
So the telephone number prices will come down a bit. The people paying mortgages (their own or other people’s) won’t see much relief.
> Meanwhile, it’s hard to overstate how spitting mad conservatives are. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida says Jordan was “knifed by secret ballot, anonymously, in a closed-door meeting in the bowels of the Capitol.” Gaetz says, “This was truly swamp tactics on display.”
SSI - Pretty rich coming from a guy who wallows in filth personal & public AND is totally full of shit.]
> Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee said it was “absurd” that Republicans were going home for the weekend instead of restarting the process immediately. He added that a majority of the members in the conference shouted “No!” when the schedule was announced. “We’re not done, and we shouldn’t be leaving,” he said.
> Representative Marc Molinaro, who voted against Jordan on the third ballot, said that Jordan told the conference after the vote that if they wanted to start the process over he would support their decision. He received a standing ovation.
SSI - What Coach Jockstrap did NOT say, was that he would NOT be a candidate if, or rather when, the "process" as they laughingly call it, resumes, whenever that is.
BTW, appears that JJ and his fellow Rabid Flying Squirrels want a weekend recess, so that there will be more time for death threats and other brownshirt shenanigans against GOP holdouts, and waverers.
A basic, right leaning, responsible Government would do the job here. Even in the space of a year I think the country could be set on the right track. I'm also not looking for us to deliberately sass the Americans or invade France, or sack all of the Civil Service - politics is the art of the possible, and Britain/England has always been confined by internal and external factors, it was the same in Elizabeth I's day. But this bunch aren't negotiating the obstacles, they're simple sellouts. They are full speed ahead to IMF town. And full speed ahead to crashing Tory defeat - any Tory MP with a survival instinct should be dusting down their typewriter.
RefUK got 5.4% in Tamworth and just under 3.7% in Mid Beds. Referendum results in the most relevant Council areas suggest Mid Beds had a higher Leave vote than the country as a whole, while Tamworth was MUCH higher (about two-thirds). They got 3.7% and 3.4% in Selby and Somerton, both of which were more Leave-leaning than the country as a whole.
I know by-elections are odd and smaller parties tend to get squeezed. But, equally, they are a bit more of a free hit for (in this case) Tories who are a bit annoyed with the blues but can't vote Labour. And the by-election seats recently happen to have been relatively Leave-leaning (and in Tamworth's case, very strongly Leave).
I can't really see them breaking 5% nationally, even if they stand in all constituencies. That's still irritating for the Tories - Jimmy Goldsmith's Referendum Party probably cost the Tories seats at the margins in 1997 with their 2.6% showing. But I'd personally be surprised if they got as much as 6-7%.
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/VI-2023-10-11-Observer-Tables-FOR-UPLOAD.xlsx
Not that I have a clue who they could pick.
He has a betrayal (just ask his wives) and skipping out after LOTS of tough talk. For example, in 2000 when he was too chickenshit to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senate.
AND his potential testimony against You Know Who would be even more damning that Michael Cohen's.
1 - Trump violated a Court Order, by failing to remove an abusive story he posted about a Court Clerk (claimed she was the girlfriend of a Democratic Senator - red meat to his mob) from the internet.
He removed one copy and left another one online.
Emergency Court Hearing incoming. Judge asked the lawyer "Why should I not put your client in jail?" - for what we would call Contempt of Court.
2 - Rudi Giuliani has failed to provide his financial details in his separate defamation trial - he was one who accused two election workers of falsifying vote counts.
He has just failed to engage so the judge has ruled him liable, and will instruct to Jury which will set damages and punitive damages to make maximalist assumptions.
@Peston
Friends of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson wish it to be known that LT and BJ are not responsible for the by-election defeats. The chaos of their premierships is apparently irrelevant. Instead it is Rishi Sunak’s stewardship of the economy for an almost unbroken four years which they say is to blame. I am not sure this reductionist argument helps them or their party. But they’d like you to know.
2:29 PM · Oct 20, 2023"
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1715359495793127783
That plus fact he's being grilled to a rich golden brown by State of Georgia, vindicates the honor of the South.
AND get's YOU off the hook down at the rib shack.
Truss has more of a case, since she was there so briefly - her impact is about reputation trashing, but the Sunak mission was to overcome that.
We hear some claim it's "like 1997" while others claim it's more like 1974. Given every election is unique the best you can hope for is to try and draw whatever you can from the past without relying on it too much.
To be 17-20 points ahead a year before polling day would, you'd think, be a difficult place from which to fail to win. In May 2009, David Cameron's Conservatives enjoyed 17-20 point leads over Labour. They started from just 198 MPs (210 if you consider favourable boundary changes) but the polls suggested a landslide.
That didn't happen as we know but not because the Government vote recovered strongly (27% became 29%) but because the Conservative vote fell back from 45% to 36%. The LD went from 17% to 23%.
That won't happen this time - it's hard to see the LDs getting much further than 15%. What may damage the Conservatives more is good old Abe Stention - a reduced turnout putting the motivated Labour vote to good use in dozens of constituencies.
The past is, though, a foreign country and no one can assume what the next 12 months will produce. The Conservatives will embrace their inner Micawber and hope for "something to turn up". Apart from that, it becomes desperation and defiance - no going quietly into the night it would seem. If we are to believe the Danny Krugers of this world the only tactic left is to try and create dividing lines but on more peripheral issues. Will that work?
Or maybe Roger meant 'democratic' politician. Which is kind of the glaring discrepancy at the heart of this conflict.
In the 2015 election to which you refer, UKIP got 12.6% - but they'd actually won a couple of Parliamentary by-elections ahead of that (admittedly resigning defectors) and secured some strong second places in others. They had won several hundred council seats over a few years. Now I know you're not suggesting they'll be up to quite that level, but we're just not seeing anything like that today.
I'll sue YOU for defamation next
(Though in all of this I think Robert is the most prominent PB character in the Jurisdiction of the Court, so we'd better continue to be highly restrained.)
I enjoy the little dances that the South Pacific nations do before their games, but I don't really see why the other side ahould have to stand and watch. I quite liked David Campese's approach of practicing his kicking until they'd got it over with. He got into trouble for 'not respecting the haka'. But I don't think it's terribly respectful to do a little war dance at your opponenta before you start.