The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars...
As were all cars, and indeed electricity onto your home, originally.
It's a risible argument which assumes things don't change. The point about renewables, and renewable tech is that it gets cheaper over time.
Governments can make that happen faster, and should be saying so.
This WaPo editorial may surprise some: "Yet the Navy enters 2024 in rough seas: Its struggle to build new ships, maintain existing ones — and recruit sailors — will take time and money to solve.
For too long, Washington has engaged in magical thinking about all of this. Concerned about China’s growing maritime presence, Congress has lately been authorizing the purchase of about 11 new warships every year, but the United States has the industrial capacity to build only a portion of those. Lawmakers, for example, typically order two submarines and three destroyers a year; but there are only enough skilled workers and materials to build and finish one of the former and two of the latter. On net, Congress isn’t increasing the Navy — the fleet, in fact, will shrink by a ship or two in 2028. It’s just padding the order books of a few big defense contractors." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/04/navy-houthis-ships-shipyards-sailors/
Our last three presidents, Obama, Trump, and Biden, are all to blame for this neglect. None of the three have shown any interest in solving these problems, or any strategic insight that would explain why they should be solved. They have all neglected what should be a president's principal duty.
(I assume most of you can see potential opportunities for British businesses, in helping us solve them.)
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
If the government offered you free solar panels to retrofit would you take them?
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
1981 seems generally accepted as millenial. Some UK govts studies including 1980 too.
The standard definition of millennial is born 1981-1996. But it's also absurd to say that someone born in 1981 has more in common with someone born in 1996 than someone born in 1979.
Born in 1981, you probably grew up (as I did) in a home with a rotary dial phone, four TV channels, and if you were very lucky, rudimentary internet access via 56k modem by the time you were ready to leave home and go to uni (if you went).
At uni, you would have just had to start paying fees (introduced 1998, cheers Blair) but you would have paid £3000 in total for a 3 year course. You would have been old enough to drink when the twin towers fell (I remember exactly where I was when the second plane hit: the pub).
You would have graduated in the early 2000s, as the economy was picking up in the post dotcom crash. You probably found it relatively easy to get work, though you might have been laid off in 2008. Still, if you worked hard, you probably managed to buy a house / flat somewhere between 2006 and 2012, so your mortgage is half paid off by now.
Born in 1996, you would have had broadband internet access from the age of preschool, and you would have been 9 years old when YouTube launched. You were five years old when the twin towers fell. You went to uni in 2014, so you would have been studying during the Brexit vote. For the privilege, you could be paying £9000 a year (£27k) in total for your course.
I'll let you figure out the rest of the story - graduating into a low growth, stagnant economy with sky high house prices and no chance of ever owning a home.
So it's ridiculous to lump "millennials" together as a group - as a term it's pretty useless.
There is a general divider beyond "Was a teenager or younger at the time of the Millennium" as it is sometimes discussed as "geriatric Millennials".
As a middling Millennial (late 80s), I often think the divides are technological and from there, cultural. Xers generally speaking will have had formative years in the late 70s and 80s and thus remember a very different world which was grimier, more violent. While will have mostly been an adult as the technological hardware upheaval from the mid to late 80s, 90s and 2000s.
Middling Millennials generally don't remember that different world - the 70s and early 80s were already history and subject to documentaries. But do remember a time before the complete digitisation of everything. Came of age and entered adulthood as social media developed so have an ambivalent relationship with it and the culture it creates. It initially was an incredible boon, but has subsequently killed off many things used to value, and things like 'influencers' are to be viewed with a degree of cynicism. Hence why there's a huge market for nostalgia and remakes from the 90s and 2000s at the moment.
Zoomers and subsequently Alphas can be defined as never having known a world that wasn't connected in more or less the same way it is now and so their digital selves and tastes are very much an extension of the self rather than something you do extra that can be an annoyance.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
Yes, but governments weren’t mandating fridges, and banning other ways of cooling food.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?) 11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced) 12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members) 13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword) 16 Major 22% (see Heseltine) 19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory) 23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine) 24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined) 25 Cameron 20% 26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
No one else has any significant or sustained cut through *yet*. Farage and Johnson are well known (look at their fame scores). Everyone and his cat has formed an opinion of them. You want someone with a low fame score, someone the electorate hasn’t made up their mind about. Look at, say, Steve Baker on that list: 19% popularity, 40% fame. There’s someone who is relatively popular among those who have heard of him, but who also has a clean sheet with the electorate.
I’m not saying Baker is the right choice — although I think he a certain charisma — but I think your analysis is wrong. Find someone good and make them leader. They will immediately start getting that significant cut through by virtue of being LOTO. These sorts of charts are always going to be dominated by yesterday’s people.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Seeing as they use the widely discredited 'gimbal' video on the story I wouldn't get your hopes up. The latter option - they've just joined the group madness (or are reporting on it).
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Lol. Except that the article is written by a sketch writing journalist. He probably has a degree in English or something even more pointless. Wiki doesn't say what he is qualified in, but having read the nonsense in the article, I would be fairly sure it isn't science. If it was, then maybe his perspective has been altered by mind altering drugs, or possibly he thought he would write it for those that are gullible enough to believe in such nonsense.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?) 11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced) 12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members) 13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword) 16 Major 22% (see Heseltine) 19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory) 23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine) 24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined) 25 Cameron 20% 26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
"The members like them"?
Hmmm. That needs taking with a serious pinch of salt. Boris is yesterday's man. I don't know ANYBODY who has even suggested Boris' return. And Farage is extreme Marmite with the membership. Even those who quite like him wouldn't trust him as far as they could throw him. He nearly screwed the Brexit vote with his poster campaign.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
That would require the police to investigate themselves, and we know how very, very long that can take.
Which is nothing to do with “#NU10K”, but a longstanding problem in all law enforcement.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
There are also finance/shared ownership schemes. We have solar (from 2014, previous owners) but our next door neighbours have just signed up to a deal for panels plus battery from one of the electricity suppliers with an interest free loan from them paid back via bills (and supposed to still deliver net lower bills).
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
If the government offered you free solar panels to retrofit would you take them?
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
I think that we may all be surprised by the improvement in governance that simply comes from no longer calibrating policy in every area to pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
Exactly right. That is the lowest of overhanging fruit and it's pretty big and juicy. The new Labour government (gosh I do like typing those words) need do nothing but pluck and eat it for things to be looking a whole lot better.
Hopefully there'll be no pandering to the editors of newspapers that pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
Yes. Bit of slack now from me (I think I'd give up on politics if Labour somehow blow this) but there's no excuse for that sort of crap after the election.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
How big an outright majority do you think he'll struggle to? Above or below 3 digits?
It looks like he has been gifted a majority by the Tories benching their best player then scoring a couple of own goals, but I’d say below 100, because when the usually uninterested public see lots of him in the campaign they’ll think “I can’t vote for this berk”
Let’s see. The last time the favourite to win the GE was such a wet blanket was 2017, and Theresa May was much shorter in the betting to win a majority, so anything’s possible
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The US pins up the whole West. If it goes, we go, and then it's everyone in the West for themselves, each of whom will very quickly make their peace with Russia and China and ask them to name their price.
That price will be very heavy.
Indeed, which is why I believe we need to build an alternate pillar to the US with our friends and allies in Europe. Maybe some sort of united states of Europe.
No, we need a much stronger Western defensive alliance where everyone pulls their weight - not a political union, which is unnecessary.
Yes to a defensive alliance, but it’s not just about military spending. It’s about economic hegemony, which requires a significant free trade zone with common regulation, which requires some sort of transnational political arrangement.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
I contacted the Shadow Minister in the autumn, welcoming Labour’s commitment to sign up to EU veterinary standards and suggesting that this should make it easy to rejoin the EU pet passport scheme, which would make things hugely easier and cheaper for the many people who take their pets on holiday, who are currently paying £100-£300 a time for the horrendous thirteen page animal travel document. It’s a live issue among pet travellers with no real downside, other than having to sign up to an EU scheme, which only worries the Brexit headbangers. So you’d think an easy promise for Labour to make?
I was impressed to get a reply almost straight away, but less impressed when I read what was clearly a stock reply, going on about how good it would be to have the same veterinary standards as the EU but not mentioning pet passports or pet travel at all.
So I responded with thanks for the reply but asking for a response to my question.
Nothing.
A few weeks later I chased the absence of a reply. And waited. Nothing. And chased again. Nothing.
That’s not impressive, and is clearly just timidity to say anything Brexit related, despite the large number of pet travellers eager for some good news. It knocked a good slice off my inclination to cast a tactical vote, I can tell you.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
That would require the police to investigate themselves, and we know how very, very long that can take.
Further, the aftermath of the Mendez shooting illustrated how they do it.
The Senior Management Team told the peons that if anyone would be prosecuted or censured, it would start with the peons.
Further, that if any of the SMT went down, so would anyone who’d followed their orders*.
So the SMT, who responsible for the actual fuckup, were protected by everyone circling the wagons.
Funny that.
*Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s not what the law says, either
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I was mulling something similar yesterday. There is a tendency (among British people? Europeans? Humans?) to think 'if only we can sacrifice enough or punish ourselves enough, we will be saved'. This was particularly evident during covid, but the climate change agenda follows the same pattern. And I was reflecting on similarities with medieval Christianity; and indeed on ancient religion, and wondering whether this viewpoint is hardwired into us culturally, or indeed as humans.
There is surprisingly little market for 'if we do this, we not only stop doing the bad thing but make life better for ourselves too'.
I think it’s because net zero, whilst now enjoying quite widespread consensus, emerged from and was campaigned for by the more misanthropic wing of the environmental movement.
And yes, this movement was infused with self-flagellating Christianity, as well as those who essentially see human prosperity overall as the problem.
So self-denying environmentalism achieves wider objectives whilst ‘easy’ net zero allows us to continue to be rabid rapacious consumers in other ways.
(I’d count myself as one who thinks wider consumer capitalism as the problem, but don’t see any point in trying to solve that wider problem at a cost of runaway climate change.)
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
That would require the police to investigate themselves, and we know how very, very long that can take.
Which is nothing to do with “#NU10K”, but a longstanding problem in all law enforcement.
Just struck me that there's actually very little overlap between NU10K and the "Davos Elite". A handful of CEOs and heads of NGOs will go to Davos but the majority of the sorts of people we read about failing upwards, getting gongs despite scandals and so on would never venture anywhere near the place. I imagine Paula Vennells and Cressida Dick, to name but two, have not set foot there. The Davos elite is globally focused; the NU10K as described by Malmesbury seems to operate on a more domestic playing field.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars...
As were all cars, and indeed electricity onto your home, originally.
It's a risible argument which assumes things don't change. The point about renewables, and renewable tech is that it gets cheaper over time.
Governments can make that happen faster, and should be saying so.
It's the same story everywhere - we need to invest more. Solar panels, HS2, public health interventions are all expensive but over a 50 year period by far the most cost-effective options.
Instead we get fuel duty freezes, pothole filling and expensive locum from junior doctors.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
Edit: WWII was won by both technology and sacrifice; it is dangerously wishful thinking to assume that only the former is needed to save our environment.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Bloke who makes a living writing books about space writes an article in the Guardian wanting readers to get interested in space shocker.
No, it’s bit more than that - in different ways
For a start, the writer is not afraid of making himself look a fool - openly speculating on the possibility of “alien” intelligence
That’s a step change
And all this is part of an overall mood shift, which gathers pace. Members of Congress were given another secret UFO briefing the other day. They did NOT emerge looking more skeptical
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?) 11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced) 12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members) 13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword) 16 Major 22% (see Heseltine) 19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory) 23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine) 24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined) 25 Cameron 20% 26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
No one else has any significant or sustained cut through *yet*. Farage and Johnson are well known (look at their fame scores). Everyone and his cat has formed an opinion of them. You want someone with a low fame score, someone the electorate hasn’t made up their mind about. Look at, say, Steve Baker on that list: 19% popularity, 40% fame. There’s someone who is relatively popular among those who have heard of him, but who also has a clean sheet with the electorate.
I’m not saying Baker is the right choice — although I think he a certain charisma — but I think your analysis is wrong. Find someone good and make them leader. They will immediately start getting that significant cut through by virtue of being LOTO. These sorts of charts are always going to be dominated by yesterday’s people.
Again in normal times I would probably concur. If you look at global politics on the right though, what works is story telling, and it doesn't make any difference if the person is old, are a retread or unpopular with opponents. I don't think the economy will improve enough over 5 years for "good" leaders to be chosen over populist charlatans.
Any show of strength for Ms. Haley could be significant ahead of New Hampshire. She had already pulled to within striking distance of Mr. Trump there before Chris Christie withdrew from the race. Historically, primary polling is extremely volatile, and the candidates who surge late often keep surging. Ms. Haley might still need just about everything to go right, and a burst of favorable media coverage after Iowa would only help. If so — and no Iowan will want to hear this — the biggest consequence of Iowa might just be in New Hampshire.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Seeing as they use the widely discredited 'gimbal' video on the story I wouldn't get your hopes up. The latter option - they've just joined the group madness (or are reporting on it).
It's just an opinion piece. No more the Guardian 'joining the weird group madness', than is Leon's output being PB joining the weird group madness.
As for the writer: Stuart Clark is an astronomy journalist and author of several books about space, both non-fiction and fiction
This WaPo editorial may surprise some: "Yet the Navy enters 2024 in rough seas: Its struggle to build new ships, maintain existing ones — and recruit sailors — will take time and money to solve.
For too long, Washington has engaged in magical thinking about all of this. Concerned about China’s growing maritime presence, Congress has lately been authorizing the purchase of about 11 new warships every year, but the United States has the industrial capacity to build only a portion of those. Lawmakers, for example, typically order two submarines and three destroyers a year; but there are only enough skilled workers and materials to build and finish one of the former and two of the latter. On net, Congress isn’t increasing the Navy — the fleet, in fact, will shrink by a ship or two in 2028. It’s just padding the order books of a few big defense contractors." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/04/navy-houthis-ships-shipyards-sailors/
Our last three presidents, Obama, Trump, and Biden, are all to blame for this neglect. None of the three have shown any interest in solving these problems, or any strategic insight that would explain why they should be solved. They have all neglected what should be a president's principal duty.
(I assume most of you can see potential opportunities for British businesses, in helping us solve them.)
There is no British industrial capacity in this area. The USN commissions, on average, 11 ships/year. The RN does 1/year in a good year and both British surface combatant yards are working at their unique interpretation of 'flat out'.
The situation does put the proposed Australian Virginias (all hail AUKUS) in some jeopardy. Congress might tell them to get fucked.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Bloke who makes a living writing books about space writes an article in the Guardian wanting readers to get interested in space shocker.
No, it’s bit more than that - in different ways
For a start, the writer is not afraid of making himself look a fool - openly speculating on the possibility of “alien” intelligence
That’s a step change
And all this is part of an overall mood shift, which gathers pace. Members of Congress were given another secret UFO briefing the other day. They did NOT emerge looking more skeptical
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
This reminds me I should check the spec of the ASHP being installed in our French place during an ongoing renovation. It was all quoted and specified about a year and a half ago so might not be the state of the art.
ASHPs seem to work extremely well in the French countryside, for 2 reasons: 1 the houses are reasonably well insulated and French style windows are much less leaky than British sashes, 2. they all have wood burning stoves and everyone I know with a heat pump there sets it to a comfortable base temperature and then augments with a wood burner.
Talking of journalists stealing PB debates, I see the villainous @SeanT has borrowed our convo about litter and turned it into some kind of spurious elegy for All of Western Civilisation
I wonder when Mr Thomas last visited Sicily. I am a regular traveller to Sicily and I do not recognise the picture painted. It is true Palermo still remains poor, unkemp (one could twin it with Wednesbury) and dominated by the Mafia,but the area around Ragusa, of which your friend writes, post Moltalbano is buzzing. But even Palermo has come along way in the thirty years since Falcone was assassinated, and one cannot move for the new holiday homes of the wealthy along the coast from Palermo to Cefalu.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
The only issue with the higher temp ones is that - as in that link - they tend to be quiet about efficiency. You do need, what is it, at least 300-400% to be competitive* with gas which the lower temp ones can do, but the higher temp ones presumably sacrifice some efficiency for that.
*depends of course on electricity source (i.e. if you have plenty of domestic solar that will help a bit, although largely at the wrong time of year) and wholesale prices versus gas and maintenance etc
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
That's a very transparent strawman. I'd have expected better of you.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?) 11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced) 12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members) 13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword) 16 Major 22% (see Heseltine) 19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory) 23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine) 24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined) 25 Cameron 20% 26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
No one else has any significant or sustained cut through *yet*. Farage and Johnson are well known (look at their fame scores). Everyone and his cat has formed an opinion of them. You want someone with a low fame score, someone the electorate hasn’t made up their mind about. Look at, say, Steve Baker on that list: 19% popularity, 40% fame. There’s someone who is relatively popular among those who have heard of him, but who also has a clean sheet with the electorate.
I’m not saying Baker is the right choice — although I think he a certain charisma — but I think your analysis is wrong. Find someone good and make them leader. They will immediately start getting that significant cut through by virtue of being LOTO. These sorts of charts are always going to be dominated by yesterday’s people.
Again in normal times I would probably concur. If you look at global politics on the right though, what works is story telling, and it doesn't make any difference if the person is old, are a retread or unpopular with opponents. I don't think the economy will improve enough over 5 years for "good" leaders to be chosen over populist charlatans.
Story tellers need their stories to be believed. That’s easier to do if you don’t already have a reputation for lying.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
The only issue with the higher temp ones is that - as in that link - they tend to be quiet about efficiency. You do need, what is it, at least 300-400% to be competitive* with gas which the lower temp ones can do, but the higher temp ones presumably sacrifice some efficiency for that.
*depends of course on electricity source (i.e. if you have plenty of domestic solar that will help a bit, although largely at the wrong time of year) and wholesale prices versus gas and maintenance etc
What's this talk of 300+% efficiency, something can't be more than (Or even at) 100% efficient.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Bloke who makes a living writing books about space writes an article in the Guardian wanting readers to get interested in space shocker.
No, it’s bit more than that - in different ways
For a start, the writer is not afraid of making himself look a fool - openly speculating on the possibility of “alien” intelligence
That’s a step change
And all this is part of an overall mood shift, which gathers pace. Members of Congress were given another secret UFO briefing the other day. They did NOT emerge looking more skeptical
So, again, WTF is going on?
He, like you, writes fiction. So you should have some insight into what's going on.
There's never been any concern about 'making yourself look foolish' speculating about alien intelligence. Scientists have done that for as long as we've been aware that there's a large universe out there.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
So stop using fossil fuels. But I don't think you will.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
There are also finance/shared ownership schemes. We have solar (from 2014, previous owners) but our next door neighbours have just signed up to a deal for panels plus battery from one of the electricity suppliers with an interest free loan from them paid back via bills (and supposed to still deliver net lower bills).
We have the same; bought a house with panels already fitted and on the hit tariff. But the inverter has broke now, in fact it broke last summer but I didn’t notice, and it’s £2k for a new one
This WaPo editorial may surprise some: "Yet the Navy enters 2024 in rough seas: Its struggle to build new ships, maintain existing ones — and recruit sailors — will take time and money to solve.
For too long, Washington has engaged in magical thinking about all of this. Concerned about China’s growing maritime presence, Congress has lately been authorizing the purchase of about 11 new warships every year, but the United States has the industrial capacity to build only a portion of those. Lawmakers, for example, typically order two submarines and three destroyers a year; but there are only enough skilled workers and materials to build and finish one of the former and two of the latter. On net, Congress isn’t increasing the Navy — the fleet, in fact, will shrink by a ship or two in 2028. It’s just padding the order books of a few big defense contractors." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/04/navy-houthis-ships-shipyards-sailors/
Our last three presidents, Obama, Trump, and Biden, are all to blame for this neglect. None of the three have shown any interest in solving these problems, or any strategic insight that would explain why they should be solved. They have all neglected what should be a president's principal duty.
(I assume most of you can see potential opportunities for British businesses, in helping us solve them.)
What's your solution, Jim ?
It's not as though you can just carry on increasing the budget - the GOP won't even agree to spend money replacing obsolescing munitions so the old stuff can be sent to Ukraine.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The US pins up the whole West. If it goes, we go, and then it's everyone in the West for themselves, each of whom will very quickly make their peace with Russia and China and ask them to name their price.
That price will be very heavy.
Indeed, which is why I believe we need to build an alternate pillar to the US with our friends and allies in Europe. Maybe some sort of united states of Europe.
No, we need a much stronger Western defensive alliance where everyone pulls their weight - not a political union, which is unnecessary.
Yes to a defensive alliance, but it’s not just about military spending. It’s about economic hegemony, which requires a significant free trade zone with common regulation, which requires some sort of transnational political arrangement.
I don't buy that. It's not necessary for Canada, Australia or New Zealand and, to the extent it is true, its delivered through the WTO, World Bank, IMF and other international treaties.
The European Union goes way beyond - beyond what's "needed" - because its driven by an idealistic and cultural vision of a fully united Europe, which is viewed to be a brilliant dream for its own sake.
I don't say there isn't a market for that. But I do say it's very far from essential for our security.
This WaPo editorial may surprise some: "Yet the Navy enters 2024 in rough seas: Its struggle to build new ships, maintain existing ones — and recruit sailors — will take time and money to solve.
For too long, Washington has engaged in magical thinking about all of this. Concerned about China’s growing maritime presence, Congress has lately been authorizing the purchase of about 11 new warships every year, but the United States has the industrial capacity to build only a portion of those. Lawmakers, for example, typically order two submarines and three destroyers a year; but there are only enough skilled workers and materials to build and finish one of the former and two of the latter. On net, Congress isn’t increasing the Navy — the fleet, in fact, will shrink by a ship or two in 2028. It’s just padding the order books of a few big defense contractors." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/04/navy-houthis-ships-shipyards-sailors/
Our last three presidents, Obama, Trump, and Biden, are all to blame for this neglect. None of the three have shown any interest in solving these problems, or any strategic insight that would explain why they should be solved. They have all neglected what should be a president's principal duty.
(I assume most of you can see potential opportunities for British businesses, in helping us solve them.)
There is no British industrial capacity in this area. The USN commissions, on average, 11 ships/year. The RN does 1/year in a good year and both British surface combatant yards are working at their unique interpretation of 'flat out'.
The situation does put the proposed Australian Virginias (all hail AUKUS) in some jeopardy. Congress might tell them to get fucked.
Once the US gets the oddball subs with enhanced payload modules built, some extra capacity will get freed up.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
The only issue with the higher temp ones is that - as in that link - they tend to be quiet about efficiency. You do need, what is it, at least 300-400% to be competitive* with gas which the lower temp ones can do, but the higher temp ones presumably sacrifice some efficiency for that.
*depends of course on electricity source (i.e. if you have plenty of domestic solar that will help a bit, although largely at the wrong time of year) and wholesale prices versus gas and maintenance etc
What's this talk of 300+% efficiency, something can't be more than (Or even at) 100% efficient.
Measure of heat output versus electricity input. The extra energy comes from the 'pumping' of the heat - i.e. 1kW at the heat pump output 3-4KW of heat, but the 'missing' heat has been captured from outside (air or ground) and 'pumped' in via the working fluid.
So, it's not magic, but a useful measure of output versus (charged for) input. With electricity ~3-4x gas per kWh you need that kind of efficiency for heat pump to cost similar (or less) than a gas boiler to run.
ETA: The useful heat output is of course <100% of the combined heat captured from outside plus the electricity supplied
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Lol. Except that the article is written by a sketch writing journalist. He probably has a degree in English or something even more pointless. Wiki doesn't say what he is qualified in, but having read the nonsense in the article, I would be fairly sure it isn't science. If it was, then maybe his perspective has been altered by mind altering drugs, or possibly he thought he would write it for those that are gullible enough to believe in such nonsense.
Sunak is getting flak on twitter/X for refusing to delay Commons proceedings for an hour so MPs can attend a memorial service for Betty Boothroyd. He is a small man in every sense.
@Samfr The detail of the YouGov MRP is far worse for the Tories than the topline result.
There are no seats where they score more than 40% of the vote. In only 74 do they score more than 35%.
There are fewer than 40 seats where they are 10pts ahead of the 2nd placed party.
There are just 12 seats where the Tory vote share outweights the combined Labour and LD vote share. And only two if you include the Greens as well.
Gives an indication as to the damage heavy tactical voting could do.
A couple of examples. The MRP has Stratford-upon-Avon (Zahawi's seat) as:
34% Con 31% LD 19% Lab
You've got to assume Labour are going to put zero effort into that seat and LDs will bombard with "only we can win here" leaflets.
It of coure true that things could improve for the Tories. But as this MRP makes clear it is also true there are perilously close to going below 100 seats if things continue to get worse for them.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
The only issue with the higher temp ones is that - as in that link - they tend to be quiet about efficiency. You do need, what is it, at least 300-400% to be competitive* with gas which the lower temp ones can do, but the higher temp ones presumably sacrifice some efficiency for that.
*depends of course on electricity source (i.e. if you have plenty of domestic solar that will help a bit, although largely at the wrong time of year) and wholesale prices versus gas and maintenance etc
What's this talk of 300+% efficiency, something can't be more than (Or even at) 100% efficient.
One unit of electricity for three of heat. The extra energy comes from the outside air. It's not a closed system, so you can get something for nothing.
Interesting long-range election preview from Oxfordshire's indie news blog. They seem to think that three county seats could fall to the LibDems, one to Labour, and can't call the fifth.
Yes, and much more positive for the LibDems than the national polls.
The MRP projections do seem more credible than UNS from national VI - for example both MRPs and the local blog’s own assessment is that the Greens will pick up votes in both Oxford seats and that Dodds, while entirely safe, will see her 2019 majority cut despite the big national swing to Labour. Which feels right to me. Whereas UNS has her winning by more than ever.
Conservative MPs given the latest polling are you now going to wake-up & put your vote of no confidence letters in too? Nothing to lose we have a GE this year anyway. Time to get our party back & be real Conservatives. And save our country from the commies who backed Corbyn!
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
I look forward to them trying to install one on the side of my fourth floor flat.
Of course, they might very well try, in which case the freeholder/managing agent will charge me a 4x mark-up on everything from scaffolding and installation to the cost of the unit itself, with a nice little backhander for their preferred contractor. Plus a bazillion quid to get someone out on a cherry picker every time the thing goes wrong.
Or they might move to a single source heating system for the entire block. Which will be even more expensive, with even more opportunities for lovely backhanders for their preferred contractor, plus because it's a commercial installation the price cap doesn't apply, so I will be paying commercial rates for the cost of my heating and water, with some people paying up to £2300 a month! source: https://inews.co.uk/news/paying-energy-bills-heat-networks-2175951
As reported last night, someone shot down a Russian A50 early warning aircraft, and damaged an IL-22. Both Ukrainians and !Russians! claiming credit...
That Coot is FUCKED. I doff my ushanka to the crew that got that on the ground and walked away.
That and the Mainstay shootdown happened a long way to the east so a blue-on-blue is the more likely event.
The A-50 was always the target in the Shar sim. I think they paid BAE to model that then ran out of money and couldn’t get any DLC with other aircraft. I must have virtually shot down hundreds of them.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
Nah, Gen Xers had more fun in the 90s tbh.
I’m a Boomer and I had a ton of fun in the 1990s. Also in the 2010s
Unless you're over 60 years old you're Gen X.
By definition, a "boomer" is someone born after the soldiers returned from WWII, and before the widespread availability of the Pill.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Lol. Except that the article is written by a sketch writing journalist. He probably has a degree in English or something even more pointless. Wiki doesn't say what he is qualified in, but having read the nonsense in the article, I would be fairly sure it isn't science. If it was, then maybe his perspective has been altered by mind altering drugs, or possibly he thought he would write it for those that are gullible enough to believe in such nonsense.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
That's a very transparent strawman. I'd have expected better of you.
I don't think so. The extra investment needed will be painful - properly insulating homes, for example, massively so. And those of us in our sixties and above won't see much of the benefit of taking it seriously (and we're the ones who will have to pay a lot of the upfront).
But the returns a couple of decades down the road are very large.
YouGov have published their own write up of their MRP.
They also provide some notes of the Telegraph commentary.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “In constituencies across England and Wales, the Labour vote is up by an average of just four per cent compared to 2019”. This is somewhat of a red herring. There is a sum using certain notional results whereby the estimated Labour share looks like a mean of a four point rise on their 2019 performance. However, this is not the correct way to look at either implied national changes nor what is happening at the constituency level.
If we aggregate up all our constituency level figures and then weight them according to likely voter population, the headline vote intention figures come out at the following:
Labour 39.5%, Conservatives 26%, Lib Dems 12.5%, Reform 9%, Greens 7.5%, SNP 3%, Plaid 0.5%, Others 2%.
A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.
Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.
Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
Immigration is not the reason we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because a) we don't build government subsidised housing in the form of council houses any more b) home ownership became the main method of accruing wealth into old age in an economy where wages stayed stagnant c) housing developers have their profits ringfenced by statutory regulation, meaning they can put forward a proposal and get approval based on one set of costings, then say something unexpected happened in the market and so all the 2 beds or one bed flats they promised now have to become 3, 4 and 5 bed houses or luxury apartments and d) because more and more properties are gobbled up by people to rent out and increasing rents on some properties whilst leaving others empty is as profitable as trying to get a tenant in even if you have to lower the rent.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
There are also finance/shared ownership schemes. We have solar (from 2014, previous owners) but our next door neighbours have just signed up to a deal for panels plus battery from one of the electricity suppliers with an interest free loan from them paid back via bills (and supposed to still deliver net lower bills).
We have the same; bought a house with panels already fitted and on the hit tariff. But the inverter has broke now, in fact it broke last summer but I didn’t notice, and it’s £2k for a new one
That seems very steep. Hard to get to location for the inverter? The units themselves are lowish numbers of £100s (depending on power capacity) I think
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
There are also finance/shared ownership schemes. We have solar (from 2014, previous owners) but our next door neighbours have just signed up to a deal for panels plus battery from one of the electricity suppliers with an interest free loan from them paid back via bills (and supposed to still deliver net lower bills).
We have the same; bought a house with panels already fitted and on the hit tariff. But the inverter has broke now, in fact it broke last summer but I didn’t notice, and it’s £2k for a new one
@Samfr The detail of the YouGov MRP is far worse for the Tories than the topline result.
There are no seats where they score more than 40% of the vote. In only 74 do they score more than 35%.
There are fewer than 40 seats where they are 10pts ahead of the 2nd placed party.
There are just 12 seats where the Tory vote share outweights the combined Labour and LD vote share. And only two if you include the Greens as well.
Gives an indication as to the damage heavy tactical voting could do.
A couple of examples. The MRP has Stratford-upon-Avon (Zahawi's seat) as:
34% Con 31% LD 19% Lab
You've got to assume Labour are going to put zero effort into that seat and LDs will bombard with "only we can win here" leaflets.
It of coure true that things could improve for the Tories. But as this MRP makes clear it is also true there are perilously close to going below 100 seats if things continue to get worse for them.
Highlights the other issue with this poll- if candidates aren't drawing up "can't win here" leaflets based on a Huge Shock Poll in a National Newspaper (Romford just about flips to Labour albeit with a huge RefUK score), they don't deserve to win.
YouGov have published their own write up of their MRP.
They also provide some notes of the Telegraph commentary.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “In constituencies across England and Wales, the Labour vote is up by an average of just four per cent compared to 2019”. This is somewhat of a red herring. There is a sum using certain notional results whereby the estimated Labour share looks like a mean of a four point rise on their 2019 performance. However, this is not the correct way to look at either implied national changes nor what is happening at the constituency level.
If we aggregate up all our constituency level figures and then weight them according to likely voter population, the headline vote intention figures come out at the following:
Labour 39.5%, Conservatives 26%, Lib Dems 12.5%, Reform 9%, Greens 7.5%, SNP 3%, Plaid 0.5%, Others 2%.
A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.
Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.
Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.
If there is no Reform candidate, is there REALLY going to be a UKIP candidate? I find that unlikely in the significant majority of seats.
Look at his demeanour. The body language. What does it say?
Recall, I am not claiming we are being visited by aliens, I AM claiming that, at the very least, the US Establishment is behaving with extreme oddness on this whole topic. And the oddness only grows. Who knows why
Years ago, I was struck by parallel results in two polls in the UK and the US. Respondents were asked whether they considered their nation basically good with some faults, or basically bad, with some redeeming features.
In the US, then, almost all Republicans chose the first, and about half of Democrats chose the second. The results were similar in the UK, with almost all Conservatives choosing the first, and about half of Labour members choosing the second.
This helps explain many things, including the religious beliefs of many Greens. If, they think, our nations have sinned against Mother Nature, we deserve some punishment.
(For the record: I would choose the first, for both nations, and think much data supports me. If anyone is interested in the specifics, I may be able to find descriptions of the polls, but won't promise to even look until at least next weekend.)
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?) 11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced) 12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members) 13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword) 16 Major 22% (see Heseltine) 19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory) 23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine) 24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined) 25 Cameron 20% 26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
No one else has any significant or sustained cut through *yet*. Farage and Johnson are well known (look at their fame scores). Everyone and his cat has formed an opinion of them. You want someone with a low fame score, someone the electorate hasn’t made up their mind about. Look at, say, Steve Baker on that list: 19% popularity, 40% fame. There’s someone who is relatively popular among those who have heard of him, but who also has a clean sheet with the electorate.
I’m not saying Baker is the right choice — although I think he a certain charisma — but I think your analysis is wrong. Find someone good and make them leader. They will immediately start getting that significant cut through by virtue of being LOTO. These sorts of charts are always going to be dominated by yesterday’s people.
Again in normal times I would probably concur. If you look at global politics on the right though, what works is story telling, and it doesn't make any difference if the person is old, are a retread or unpopular with opponents. I don't think the economy will improve enough over 5 years for "good" leaders to be chosen over populist charlatans.
Story tellers need their stories to be believed. That’s easier to do if you don’t already have a reputation for lying.
Conservative MPs given the latest polling are you now going to wake-up & put your vote of no confidence letters in too? Nothing to lose we have a GE this year anyway. Time to get our party back & be real Conservatives. And save our country from the commies who backed Corbyn!
MAGA - Make Andrea Great Again
(Some may be skeptical that "Again" is applicable here...)
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
There are also finance/shared ownership schemes. We have solar (from 2014, previous owners) but our next door neighbours have just signed up to a deal for panels plus battery from one of the electricity suppliers with an interest free loan from them paid back via bills (and supposed to still deliver net lower bills).
We have the same; bought a house with panels already fitted and on the hit tariff. But the inverter has broke now, in fact it broke last summer but I didn’t notice, and it’s £2k for a new one
That seems very steep. Hard to get to location for the inverter? The units themselves are lowish numbers of £100s (depending on power capacity) I think
It’s in the loft, which is all boarded out, so not difficult really. I thought £2k sounded a lot. It’s obviously costing me at the moment not to update it
Funny story, shows my ignorance, the bloke said to me “it’s going to be nineteen ninety five to replace it” and I thought he meant twenty quid!
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The US pins up the whole West. If it goes, we go, and then it's everyone in the West for themselves, each of whom will very quickly make their peace with Russia and China and ask them to name their price.
That price will be very heavy.
Indeed, which is why I believe we need to build an alternate pillar to the US with our friends and allies in Europe. Maybe some sort of united states of Europe.
No, we need a much stronger Western defensive alliance where everyone pulls their weight - not a political union, which is unnecessary.
Yes to a defensive alliance, but it’s not just about military spending. It’s about economic hegemony, which requires a significant free trade zone with common regulation, which requires some sort of transnational political arrangement.
I don't buy that. It's not necessary for Canada, Australia or New Zealand and, to the extent it is true, its delivered through the WTO, World Bank, IMF and other international treaties.
The European Union goes way beyond - beyond what's "needed" - because its driven by an idealistic and cultural vision of a fully united Europe, which is viewed to be a brilliant dream for its own sake.
I don't say there isn't a market for that. But I do say it's very far from essential for our security.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are not pinning up the whole West. They are enjoying the benefits of a West being pinned up by the US. If one wants an alternative to the US (a federal system with an integrated economy and common currency) as that linchpin, then loose alliances aren't going to deliver it.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Bloke who makes a living writing books about space writes an article in the Guardian wanting readers to get interested in space shocker.
No, it’s bit more than that - in different ways
For a start, the writer is not afraid of making himself look a fool - openly speculating on the possibility of “alien” intelligence
That’s a step change
And all this is part of an overall mood shift, which gathers pace. Members of Congress were given another secret UFO briefing the other day. They did NOT emerge looking more skeptical
So, again, WTF is going on?
We've done this. You will spout your 5 theories, and I will say its the same old same old of some credulous fools being taken in by either a mistaken true believer (Grusch, genuinely coming to the wrong conclusions about what 'recovery of alien craft' means - hint alien might just mean not US) and grifters who have worked out there is money to be made spinning yarns about Project Sign, Grudge, Bluebook, etc etc etc.
@Samfr The detail of the YouGov MRP is far worse for the Tories than the topline result.
There are no seats where they score more than 40% of the vote. In only 74 do they score more than 35%.
There are fewer than 40 seats where they are 10pts ahead of the 2nd placed party.
There are just 12 seats where the Tory vote share outweights the combined Labour and LD vote share. And only two if you include the Greens as well.
Gives an indication as to the damage heavy tactical voting could do.
A couple of examples. The MRP has Stratford-upon-Avon (Zahawi's seat) as:
34% Con 31% LD 19% Lab
You've got to assume Labour are going to put zero effort into that seat and LDs will bombard with "only we can win here" leaflets.
It of coure true that things could improve for the Tories. But as this MRP makes clear it is also true there are perilously close to going below 100 seats if things continue to get worse for them.
I think it is likely that things will be on the pessimistic side for the Tories. They blew up their post Coalition voter coalition. The Tories had managed to convince wets that even if they didn't like some of the social nasties in the party, they could all be ignored as they were when they had to work with the LDs, and economic stability would be the key messaging to holding that together. And that economic stability was built on not letting mortgages for middle-class professionals get out of hand once you get them - therefore keeping the interest rate low. That's why Johnson could keep a lot of Remainery Tories, because they saw the party as safe on their economic interest, and could expand to red wall voters with his promises to "get Brexit done" and essentially end austerity with "levelling up". Truss exploded that the moment interest rates started to rise and middle-class professionals turned on the party.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
Immigration is not the reason we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because a) we don't build government subsidised housing in the form of council houses any more b) home ownership became the main method of accruing wealth into old age in an economy where wages stayed stagnant c) housing developers have their profits ringfenced by statutory regulation, meaning they can put forward a proposal and get approval based on one set of costings, then say something unexpected happened in the market and so all the 2 beds or one bed flats they promised now have to become 3, 4 and 5 bed houses or luxury apartments and d) because more and more properties are gobbled up by people to rent out and increasing rents on some properties whilst leaving others empty is as profitable as trying to get a tenant in even if you have to lower the rent.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
Is the country's population increasing? How much of this increase is down to immigration?
I fear you are ignoring the obvious.
There are other pressures on housing that means that even a stable population would require more homes to be built: for instance, fewer people in each home over time (AIUI), or old housing stock being replaced; but blaming second home owners when the obvious issue is immigration is ridiculous.
If you think immigration hasn't put pressure on housing, I might suggest you visit my town. Now, the immigrants in my town are generally nice people (especially the Turks and Poles...), but the idea that immigration has no effect is stupid.
If total net migration to the UK is 300,000, and the average family has three people in a house, then that is 100,000 houses having to be built each year. That's a half to a third of all the new houses in the UK.
Any show of strength for Ms. Haley could be significant ahead of New Hampshire. She had already pulled to within striking distance of Mr. Trump there before Chris Christie withdrew from the race. Historically, primary polling is extremely volatile, and the candidates who surge late often keep surging. Ms. Haley might still need just about everything to go right, and a burst of favorable media coverage after Iowa would only help. If so — and no Iowan will want to hear this — the biggest consequence of Iowa might just be in New Hampshire.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
But the same would have been said about all new technologies in their early adopter stages. "Buy a fridge, it'll reduce your food waste and help you keep drinks cool." "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes". "Buy a car, you'll save loads of time getting from A to B and it'll open up a new world of leisure". "That's just a luxury item for the monied middle classes".
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
There are also finance/shared ownership schemes. We have solar (from 2014, previous owners) but our next door neighbours have just signed up to a deal for panels plus battery from one of the electricity suppliers with an interest free loan from them paid back via bills (and supposed to still deliver net lower bills).
We have the same; bought a house with panels already fitted and on the hit tariff. But the inverter has broke now, in fact it broke last summer but I didn’t notice, and it’s £2k for a new one
That seems very steep. Hard to get to location for the inverter? The units themselves are lowish numbers of £100s (depending on power capacity) I think
It’s in the loft, which is all boarded out, so not difficult really. I thought £2k sounded a lot. It’s obviously costing me at the moment not to update it
Funny story, shows my ignorance, the bloke said to me “it’s going to be nineteen ninety five to replace it” and I thought he meant twenty quid!
The inverter is about £1000 before VAT with Labour then on top.
For about £4000 or so you should be able to get a battery as well which would save the energy you don’t use immediately for later in the day
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
If the government offered you free solar panels to retrofit would you take them?
Free for me, or free for my landlord?
The freehold owner, but let's say you were he?
But for most of the bottom half of the country, they’re not. Especially not with the recent expansion in leasehold.
They just see their bills going up, and the government subsidies going to people richer than them.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
How big an outright majority do you think he'll struggle to? Above or below 3 digits?
It looks like he has been gifted a majority by the Tories benching their best player then scoring a couple of own goals, but I’d say below 100, because when the usually uninterested public see lots of him in the campaign they’ll think “I can’t vote for this berk”
Let’s see. The last time the favourite to win the GE was such a wet blanket was 2017, and Theresa May was much shorter in the betting to win a majority, so anything’s possible
We have seen some shocks in recent years, haven't we. But here I really would be - shocked. I think the Lab majority will be 3 digits.
Just thinking, now you're well and truly back on PB we can do a bet if you like to supplement our current one.
We 'cash out' the £300/£100 'Starmer PM post GE' bet at say £250 to me. I think that's slightly in your favour at current prices.
But we don't settle. Instead we do a 'double or quits' on Labour outright majority at the GE.
If it's 100 or above I win £500 If it's below 100 we are Flat
Look at his demeanour. The body language. What does it say?
Recall, I am not claiming we are being visited by aliens, I AM claiming that, at the very least, the US Establishment is behaving with extreme oddness on this whole topic. And the oddness only grows. Who knows why
Politico today have a story about the ex Vice President, who can't meet women without a chaperone present, and was sought out by members of his own party who wanted to hang him, trying to persuade someone to vote for him but getting sidetracked by the voter thinking the current President is a hologram.
Odd things happening in the US is err, not odd at all.
The explanation by YouGov of their tactical voting input is beyond my level of understanding the English language. What are they actually saying, tactical voting is included or it is not.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
That's a very transparent strawman. I'd have expected better of you.
I don't think so. The extra investment needed will be painful - properly insulating homes, for example, massively so. And those of us in our sixties and above won't see much of the benefit of taking it seriously (and we're the ones who will have to pay a lot of the upfront).
But the returns a couple of decades down the road are very large.
Nobody is believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy, least of all me.
I was thinking more about, for example, the current media campaign against electric vehicles. The implication is that people would be stupid to buy them because they cannot (yet) do all that petrol/diesel cars can and for the same or lower cost. The idea that people might perhaps be prepared to endure any slight hardship, such as a 20 minute wait to recharge, in order to lessen their impact on the environment is, apparently, laughable. It seems that altruism is for idiots.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
Immigration is not the reason we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because a) we don't build government subsidised housing in the form of council houses any more b) home ownership became the main method of accruing wealth into old age in an economy where wages stayed stagnant c) housing developers have their profits ringfenced by statutory regulation, meaning they can put forward a proposal and get approval based on one set of costings, then say something unexpected happened in the market and so all the 2 beds or one bed flats they promised now have to become 3, 4 and 5 bed houses or luxury apartments and d) because more and more properties are gobbled up by people to rent out and increasing rents on some properties whilst leaving others empty is as profitable as trying to get a tenant in even if you have to lower the rent.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
Is the country's population increasing? How much of this increase is down to immigration?
I fear you are ignoring the obvious.
There are other pressures on housing that means that even a stable population would require more homes to be built: for instance, fewer people in each home over time (AIUI), or old housing stock being replaced; but blaming second home owners when the obvious issue is immigration is ridiculous.
If you think immigration hasn't put pressure on housing, I might suggest you visit my town. Now, the immigrants in my town are generally nice people (especially the Turks and Poles...), but the idea that immigration has no effect is stupid.
If total net migration to the UK is 300,000, and the average family has three people in a house, then that is 100,000 houses having to be built each year. That's a half to a third of all the new houses in the UK.
Immigration is a factor, but not a significant one. It's the increasing commodification of the housing market - that a house is now a person's pension plan rather than an actual decent pension plan topped up with savings. It's the increasing rent that landlords put on properties which they'd rather leave empty then fill at lower costs. It's the failure of housing associations and the inability for councils to actually force affordable housing to be built (and the ridiculous definition of "affordable" meaning 80% of average house prices in a given area). Do we need more houses, yes, but if we suddenly had a glut of supply that still wouldn't lower the prices because if it did the economy would be fucked because most peoples' wealth is entirely based on the inflated housing market. Like negative equity would screw with 10,000s of families, and prices falling would hurt pensioners (and their children) who planned to leverage their housing to pay for care, or to be sold after death to mean their kids get anything. Even with less immigration we would still have all of the above issues.
YouGov have published their own write up of their MRP.
They also provide some notes of the Telegraph commentary.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “In constituencies across England and Wales, the Labour vote is up by an average of just four per cent compared to 2019”. This is somewhat of a red herring. There is a sum using certain notional results whereby the estimated Labour share looks like a mean of a four point rise on their 2019 performance. However, this is not the correct way to look at either implied national changes nor what is happening at the constituency level.
If we aggregate up all our constituency level figures and then weight them according to likely voter population, the headline vote intention figures come out at the following:
Labour 39.5%, Conservatives 26%, Lib Dems 12.5%, Reform 9%, Greens 7.5%, SNP 3%, Plaid 0.5%, Others 2%.
A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.
Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.
Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.
If there is no Reform candidate, is there REALLY going to be a UKIP candidate? I find that unlikely in the significant majority of seats.
UKIP managed to stand in 44 seats at the 2019 election (against Reform UK's 275).
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
That's a very transparent strawman. I'd have expected better of you.
I don't think so. The extra investment needed will be painful - properly insulating homes, for example, massively so. And those of us in our sixties and above won't see much of the benefit of taking it seriously (and we're the ones who will have to pay a lot of the upfront).
But the returns a couple of decades down the road are very large.
Nobody is believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy, least of all me.
I was thinking more about, for example, the current media campaign against electric vehicles. The implication is that people would be stupid to buy them because they cannot (yet) do all that petrol/diesel cars can and for the same or lower cost. The idea that people should perhaps be prepared to endure any slight hardship, such as a 20 minute wait to recharge, in order to lessen their impact on the environment is, apparently, laughable. It seems that altruism is for idiots.
Because that is an abstract thought. 20mins (assuming that is the charge time and the charger is the right type and there is no one in the queue in front of you).
That is a big ask "for the greater good" whatever tf that is.
Why don't you turn off your computer (let's round it up to an hour, say) and do nothing - you can imagine yourself at a BP garage on the A3 for example.
It will be for the greater good.
Let us know how you get on when you turn the laptop back on.
The explanation by YouGov of their tactical voting input is beyond my level of understanding the English language. What are they actually saying, tactical voting is included or it is not.
What I think they are saying is that their large local samples captures tactical voting already in the base - i.e. you can see from the Surrey seats that many of them flip LibDem, and there are surely Labour voters in the local samples who have responded that they will vote LibDem in their local seat. This contrasts with applying UNS to the result last time, which obviously doesn't capture any tactical voting at all (except by dint of working from the votes cast last time, some of which will have been tactical).
But it doesn't capture 'future' tactical voting - i.e. people yet to be persuaded (by active local campaigns and/or formal tactical voting drives) to switch their vote between the opposotion parties based on who they think best placed to win.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
Immigration is not the reason we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because a) we don't build government subsidised housing in the form of council houses any more b) home ownership became the main method of accruing wealth into old age in an economy where wages stayed stagnant c) housing developers have their profits ringfenced by statutory regulation, meaning they can put forward a proposal and get approval based on one set of costings, then say something unexpected happened in the market and so all the 2 beds or one bed flats they promised now have to become 3, 4 and 5 bed houses or luxury apartments and d) because more and more properties are gobbled up by people to rent out and increasing rents on some properties whilst leaving others empty is as profitable as trying to get a tenant in even if you have to lower the rent.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
Is the country's population increasing? How much of this increase is down to immigration?
I fear you are ignoring the obvious.
There are other pressures on housing that means that even a stable population would require more homes to be built: for instance, fewer people in each home over time (AIUI), or old housing stock being replaced; but blaming second home owners when the obvious issue is immigration is ridiculous.
If you think immigration hasn't put pressure on housing, I might suggest you visit my town. Now, the immigrants in my town are generally nice people (especially the Turks and Poles...), but the idea that immigration has no effect is stupid.
If total net migration to the UK is 300,000, and the average family has three people in a house, then that is 100,000 houses having to be built each year. That's a half to a third of all the new houses in the UK.
Housing crisis is significantly down to immigration. But without immigration we would have other different crises. The answer, of course, is to plan for immigration and build appropriate amounts, of not just housing, but also wider infrastructure.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
That's a very transparent strawman. I'd have expected better of you.
I don't think so. The extra investment needed will be painful - properly insulating homes, for example, massively so. And those of us in our sixties and above won't see much of the benefit of taking it seriously (and we're the ones who will have to pay a lot of the upfront).
But the returns a couple of decades down the road are very large.
Nobody is believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy, least of all me.
I was thinking more about, for example, the current media campaign against electric vehicles. The implication is that people would be stupid to buy them because they cannot (yet) do all that petrol/diesel cars can and for the same or lower cost. The idea that people should perhaps be prepared to endure any slight hardship, such as a 20 minute wait to recharge, in order to lessen their impact on the environment is, apparently, laughable. It seems that altruism is for idiots.
Because that is an abstract thought. 20mins (assuming that is the charge time and the charger is the right type and there is no one in the queue in front of you).
That is a big ask "for the greater good" whatever tf that is.
Why don't you turn off your computer (let's round it up to an hour, say) and do nothing - you can imagine yourself at a BP garage on the A3 for example.
It will be for the greater good.
Let us know how you get on when you turn the laptop back on.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I've argued that for quite some time.
I'd argue the opposite. Our modern entitled society has been brainwashed into thinking that compromise for the sake of the environment is out of question. There won't be any blood, sweat and tears from us to save the day; if we can't save the world without inconveniencing ourselves then future generations can go fry.
The compromise is that it's going to mean a lot of investment. That's the inconvenience.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
That's a very transparent strawman. I'd have expected better of you.
I don't think so. The extra investment needed will be painful - properly insulating homes, for example, massively so. And those of us in our sixties and above won't see much of the benefit of taking it seriously (and we're the ones who will have to pay a lot of the upfront).
But the returns a couple of decades down the road are very large.
Nobody is believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy, least of all me.
I was thinking more about, for example, the current media campaign against electric vehicles. The implication is that people would be stupid to buy them because they cannot (yet) do all that petrol/diesel cars can and for the same or lower cost. The idea that people should perhaps be prepared to endure any slight hardship, such as a 20 minute wait to recharge, in order to lessen their impact on the environment is, apparently, laughable. It seems that altruism is for idiots.
Because that is an abstract thought. 20mins (assuming that is the charge time and the charger is the right type and there is no one in the queue in front of you).
That is a big ask "for the greater good" whatever tf that is.
Why don't you turn off your computer (let's round it up to an hour, say) and do nothing - you can imagine yourself at a BP garage on the A3 for example.
It will be for the greater good.
Let us know how you get on when you turn the laptop back on.
QED
Go on then. Turn your laptop off for 20 mins. Do your bit you selfish git.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.
Any other irrelevant questions?
Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Quick additive: if heat pumps get good enough to pump out 60-80C of heat and give hot water/heat during Winter and cooling during Summer then they will both be cheaper and better than gas boilers and I will rapidly change my mind on those too.
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
The only issue with the higher temp ones is that - as in that link - they tend to be quiet about efficiency. You do need, what is it, at least 300-400% to be competitive* with gas which the lower temp ones can do, but the higher temp ones presumably sacrifice some efficiency for that.
*depends of course on electricity source (i.e. if you have plenty of domestic solar that will help a bit, although largely at the wrong time of year) and wholesale prices versus gas and maintenance etc
What's this talk of 300+% efficiency, something can't be more than (Or even at) 100% efficient.
@Samfr The detail of the YouGov MRP is far worse for the Tories than the topline result.
There are no seats where they score more than 40% of the vote. In only 74 do they score more than 35%.
There are fewer than 40 seats where they are 10pts ahead of the 2nd placed party.
There are just 12 seats where the Tory vote share outweights the combined Labour and LD vote share. And only two if you include the Greens as well.
Gives an indication as to the damage heavy tactical voting could do.
A couple of examples. The MRP has Stratford-upon-Avon (Zahawi's seat) as:
34% Con 31% LD 19% Lab
You've got to assume Labour are going to put zero effort into that seat and LDs will bombard with "only we can win here" leaflets.
It of coure true that things could improve for the Tories. But as this MRP makes clear it is also true there are perilously close to going below 100 seats if things continue to get worse for them.
In most LD target seats there was already heavily Labour tactical voting against the Tories even in 2019 and of course now the Labour vote will likely be higher there than in 2019.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
Immigration is not the reason we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because a) we don't build government subsidised housing in the form of council houses any more b) home ownership became the main method of accruing wealth into old age in an economy where wages stayed stagnant c) housing developers have their profits ringfenced by statutory regulation, meaning they can put forward a proposal and get approval based on one set of costings, then say something unexpected happened in the market and so all the 2 beds or one bed flats they promised now have to become 3, 4 and 5 bed houses or luxury apartments and d) because more and more properties are gobbled up by people to rent out and increasing rents on some properties whilst leaving others empty is as profitable as trying to get a tenant in even if you have to lower the rent.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
Is the country's population increasing? How much of this increase is down to immigration?
I fear you are ignoring the obvious.
There are other pressures on housing that means that even a stable population would require more homes to be built: for instance, fewer people in each home over time (AIUI), or old housing stock being replaced; but blaming second home owners when the obvious issue is immigration is ridiculous.
If you think immigration hasn't put pressure on housing, I might suggest you visit my town. Now, the immigrants in my town are generally nice people (especially the Turks and Poles...), but the idea that immigration has no effect is stupid.
If total net migration to the UK is 300,000, and the average family has three people in a house, then that is 100,000 houses having to be built each year. That's a half to a third of all the new houses in the UK.
Immigration is a factor, but not a significant one. It's the increasing commodification of the housing market - that a house is now a person's pension plan rather than an actual decent pension plan topped up with savings. It's the increasing rent that landlords put on properties which they'd rather leave empty then fill at lower costs. It's the failure of housing associations and the inability for councils to actually force affordable housing to be built (and the ridiculous definition of "affordable" meaning 80% of average house prices in a given area). Do we need more houses, yes, but if we suddenly had a glut of supply that still wouldn't lower the prices because if it did the economy would be fucked because most peoples' wealth is entirely based on the inflated housing market. Like negative equity would screw with 10,000s of families, and prices falling would hurt pensioners (and their children) who planned to leverage their housing to pay for care, or to be sold after death to mean their kids get anything. Even with less immigration we would still have all of the above issues.
"Immigration is a factor, but not a significant one."
No.
Simply no.
You have got your own political bugbears, and are desperately trying to put the 'reasons' onto those. Instead of looking at the reality (or realty...) as I did with the figures below.
As ever, the situation is complex, but to say immigration is not a significant factor in the housing crisis is ridiculous.
(And before anyone pipes up, I am not anti-immigration for rather obvious reasons...)
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is the reason we have a housing crisis. (Denying this is like saying the earth is flat imo).
Immigration is not the reason we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because a) we don't build government subsidised housing in the form of council houses any more b) home ownership became the main method of accruing wealth into old age in an economy where wages stayed stagnant c) housing developers have their profits ringfenced by statutory regulation, meaning they can put forward a proposal and get approval based on one set of costings, then say something unexpected happened in the market and so all the 2 beds or one bed flats they promised now have to become 3, 4 and 5 bed houses or luxury apartments and d) because more and more properties are gobbled up by people to rent out and increasing rents on some properties whilst leaving others empty is as profitable as trying to get a tenant in even if you have to lower the rent.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
Is the country's population increasing? How much of this increase is down to immigration?
I fear you are ignoring the obvious.
There are other pressures on housing that means that even a stable population would require more homes to be built: for instance, fewer people in each home over time (AIUI), or old housing stock being replaced; but blaming second home owners when the obvious issue is immigration is ridiculous.
If you think immigration hasn't put pressure on housing, I might suggest you visit my town. Now, the immigrants in my town are generally nice people (especially the Turks and Poles...), but the idea that immigration has no effect is stupid.
If total net migration to the UK is 300,000, and the average family has three people in a house, then that is 100,000 houses having to be built each year. That's a half to a third of all the new houses in the UK.
Immigration is a factor, but not a significant one. It's the increasing commodification of the housing market - that a house is now a person's pension plan rather than an actual decent pension plan topped up with savings. It's the increasing rent that landlords put on properties which they'd rather leave empty then fill at lower costs. It's the failure of housing associations and the inability for councils to actually force affordable housing to be built (and the ridiculous definition of "affordable" meaning 80% of average house prices in a given area). Do we need more houses, yes, but if we suddenly had a glut of supply that still wouldn't lower the prices because if it did the economy would be fucked because most peoples' wealth is entirely based on the inflated housing market. Like negative equity would screw with 10,000s of families, and prices falling would hurt pensioners (and their children) who planned to leverage their housing to pay for care, or to be sold after death to mean their kids get anything. Even with less immigration we would still have all of the above issues.
But also, where the houses are, relative to where people want to live and where employers want to locate themselves.
Part of the lament of the Red Wall towns is that opportunities have moved away from them. Which is true, sad, but probably inevitable. Larger cities (which doesn't have to mean just London) are where it's at.
YouGov have published their own write up of their MRP.
They also provide some notes of the Telegraph commentary.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “In constituencies across England and Wales, the Labour vote is up by an average of just four per cent compared to 2019”. This is somewhat of a red herring. There is a sum using certain notional results whereby the estimated Labour share looks like a mean of a four point rise on their 2019 performance. However, this is not the correct way to look at either implied national changes nor what is happening at the constituency level.
If we aggregate up all our constituency level figures and then weight them according to likely voter population, the headline vote intention figures come out at the following:
Labour 39.5%, Conservatives 26%, Lib Dems 12.5%, Reform 9%, Greens 7.5%, SNP 3%, Plaid 0.5%, Others 2%.
A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.
Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.
Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.
If there is no Reform candidate, is there REALLY going to be a UKIP candidate? I find that unlikely in the significant majority of seats.
UKIP managed to stand in 44 seats at the 2019 election (against Reform UK's 275).
YouGov have published their own write up of their MRP.
They also provide some notes of the Telegraph commentary.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “In constituencies across England and Wales, the Labour vote is up by an average of just four per cent compared to 2019”. This is somewhat of a red herring. There is a sum using certain notional results whereby the estimated Labour share looks like a mean of a four point rise on their 2019 performance. However, this is not the correct way to look at either implied national changes nor what is happening at the constituency level.
If we aggregate up all our constituency level figures and then weight them according to likely voter population, the headline vote intention figures come out at the following:
Labour 39.5%, Conservatives 26%, Lib Dems 12.5%, Reform 9%, Greens 7.5%, SNP 3%, Plaid 0.5%, Others 2%.
A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.
Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.
Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.
If there is no Reform candidate, is there REALLY going to be a UKIP candidate? I find that unlikely in the significant majority of seats.
UKIP managed to stand in 44 seats at the 2019 election (against Reform UK's 275).
It is pointless me turning my laptop off for 20 mins/not flying to Tenerife when all you selfish bastards/Big Oil are ruining the planet = it is pointless for the UK to go crazy achieving Net Zero when eg China/the US/etc are doing nothing of the sort.
Comments
It's a risible argument which assumes things don't change. The point about renewables, and renewable tech is that it gets cheaper over time.
Governments can make that happen faster, and should be saying so.
For too long, Washington has engaged in magical thinking about all of this. Concerned about China’s growing maritime presence, Congress has lately been authorizing the purchase of about 11 new warships every year, but the United States has the industrial capacity to build only a portion of those. Lawmakers, for example, typically order two submarines and three destroyers a year; but there are only enough skilled workers and materials to build and finish one of the former and two of the latter. On net, Congress isn’t increasing the Navy — the fleet, in fact, will shrink by a ship or two in 2028. It’s just padding the order books of a few big defense contractors."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/04/navy-houthis-ships-shipyards-sailors/
Our last three presidents, Obama, Trump, and Biden, are all to blame for this neglect. None of the three have shown any interest in solving these problems, or any strategic insight that would explain why they should be solved. They have all neglected what should be a president's principal duty.
(I assume most of you can see potential opportunities for British businesses, in helping us solve them.)
Might make it less enticing to go out into an Iowan blizzard for the caucus tonight....
I just don't buy the current "40C is fine and you just have to accept having your house at 15C at best", with lots of new radiators and insulation on top required to even get that, horseshit.
Rational consumer.
As a middling Millennial (late 80s), I often think the divides are technological and from there, cultural. Xers generally speaking will have had formative years in the late 70s and 80s and thus remember a very different world which was grimier, more violent. While will have mostly been an adult as the technological hardware upheaval from the mid to late 80s, 90s and 2000s.
Middling Millennials generally don't remember that different world - the 70s and early 80s were already history and subject to documentaries. But do remember a time before the complete digitisation of everything. Came of age and entered adulthood as social media developed so have an ambivalent relationship with it and the culture it creates. It initially was an incredible boon, but has subsequently killed off many things used to value, and things like 'influencers' are to be viewed with a degree of cynicism. Hence why there's a huge market for nostalgia and remakes from the 90s and 2000s at the moment.
Zoomers and subsequently Alphas can be defined as never having known a world that wasn't connected in more or less the same way it is now and so their digital selves and tastes are very much an extension of the self rather than something you do extra that can be an annoyance.
EV costs are coming down quickly. Solar panel costs have come down extremely quickly. Unfortunately, as others have commented, the price of renewable energy hasn't because it's tied for regulatory purposes to the price of gas.
I’m not saying Baker is the right choice — although I think he a certain charisma — but I think your analysis is wrong. Find someone good and make them leader. They will immediately start getting that significant cut through by virtue of being LOTO. These sorts of charts are always going to be dominated by yesterday’s people.
Hmmm. That needs taking with a serious pinch of salt. Boris is yesterday's man. I don't know ANYBODY who has even suggested Boris' return. And Farage is extreme Marmite with the membership. Even those who quite like him wouldn't trust him as far as they could throw him. He nearly screwed the Brexit vote with his poster campaign.
Let’s see. The last time the favourite to win the GE was such a wet blanket was 2017, and Theresa May was much shorter in the betting to win a majority, so anything’s possible
I was impressed to get a reply almost straight away, but less impressed when I read what was clearly a stock reply, going on about how good it would be to have the same veterinary standards as the EU but not mentioning pet passports or pet travel at all.
So I responded with thanks for the reply but asking for a response to my question.
Nothing.
A few weeks later I chased the absence of a reply. And waited. Nothing. And chased again. Nothing.
That’s not impressive, and is clearly just timidity to say anything Brexit related, despite the large number of pet travellers eager for some good news. It knocked a good slice off my inclination to cast a tactical vote, I can tell you.
The Senior Management Team told the peons that if anyone would be prosecuted or censured, it would start with the peons.
Further, that if any of the SMT went down, so would anyone who’d followed their orders*.
So the SMT, who responsible for the actual fuckup, were protected by everyone circling the wagons.
Funny that.
*Yes, I’m pretty sure that’s not what the law says, either
And yes, this movement was infused with self-flagellating Christianity, as well as those who essentially see human prosperity overall as the problem.
So self-denying environmentalism achieves wider objectives whilst ‘easy’ net zero allows us to continue to be rabid rapacious consumers in other ways.
(I’d count myself as one who thinks wider consumer capitalism as the problem, but don’t see any point in trying to solve that wider problem at a cost of runaway climate change.)
https://www.daikin.co.uk/en_gb/residential/products-and-advice/product-categories/heat-pumps/air-to-water-heat-pumps/daikin-altherma-3-h-ht-f.html
Instead we get fuel duty freezes, pothole filling and expensive locum from junior doctors.
Edit: WWII was won by both technology and sacrifice; it is dangerously wishful thinking to assume that only the former is needed to save our environment.
For a start, the writer is not afraid of making himself look a fool - openly speculating on the possibility of “alien” intelligence
That’s a step change
And all this is part of an overall mood shift, which gathers pace. Members of Congress were given another secret UFO briefing the other day. They did NOT emerge looking more skeptical
So, again, WTF is going on?
Any show of strength for Ms. Haley could be significant ahead of New Hampshire. She had already pulled to within striking distance of Mr. Trump there before Chris Christie withdrew from the race. Historically, primary polling is extremely volatile, and the candidates who surge late often keep surging. Ms. Haley might still need just about everything to go right, and a burst of favorable media coverage after Iowa would only help. If so — and no Iowan will want to hear this — the biggest consequence of Iowa might just be in New Hampshire.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/15/upshot/iowa-caucus-new-hampshire-haley.html
No more the Guardian 'joining the weird group madness', than is Leon's output being PB joining the weird group madness.
As for the writer:
Stuart Clark is an astronomy journalist and author of several books about space, both non-fiction and fiction
The situation does put the proposed Australian Virginias (all hail AUKUS) in some jeopardy. Congress might tell them to get fucked.
ASHPs seem to work extremely well in the French countryside, for 2 reasons: 1 the houses are reasonably well insulated and French style windows are much less leaky than British sashes, 2. they all have wood burning stoves and everyone I know with a heat pump there sets it to a comfortable base temperature and then augments with a wood burner.
Believing that everyone is just going to stop using energy and that will solve the problem is delusional.
*depends of course on electricity source (i.e. if you have plenty of domestic solar that will help a bit, although largely at the wrong time of year) and wholesale prices versus gas and maintenance etc
So you should have some insight into what's going on.
There's never been any concern about 'making yourself look foolish' speculating about alien intelligence. Scientists have done that for as long as we've been aware that there's a large universe out there.
It's not as though you can just carry on increasing the budget - the GOP won't even agree to spend money replacing obsolescing munitions so the old stuff can be sent to Ukraine.
And it's not as though the administration is unaware of the problem..
White House Calls for $3.4B Boost in Submarine Industrial Base Funding
https://news.usni.org/2023/10/20/white-house-calls-for-3-4b-more-in-submarine-industrial-base-funding
The European Union goes way beyond - beyond what's "needed" - because its driven by an idealistic and cultural vision of a fully united Europe, which is viewed to be a brilliant dream for its own sake.
I don't say there isn't a market for that. But I do say it's very far from essential for our security.
So, it's not magic, but a useful measure of output versus (charged for) input. With electricity ~3-4x gas per kWh you need that kind of efficiency for heat pump to cost similar (or less) than a gas boiler to run.
ETA: The useful heat output is of course <100% of the combined heat captured from outside plus the electricity supplied
The detail of the YouGov MRP is far worse for the Tories than the topline result.
There are no seats where they score more than 40% of the vote. In only 74 do they score more than 35%.
There are fewer than 40 seats where they are 10pts ahead of the 2nd placed party.
There are just 12 seats where the Tory vote share outweights the combined Labour and LD vote share. And only two if you include the Greens as well.
Gives an indication as to the damage heavy tactical voting could do.
A couple of examples. The MRP has Stratford-upon-Avon (Zahawi's seat) as:
34% Con
31% LD
19% Lab
You've got to assume Labour are going to put zero effort into that seat and LDs will bombard with "only we can win here" leaflets.
It of coure true that things could improve for the Tories. But as this MRP makes clear it is also true there are perilously close to going below 100 seats if things continue to get worse for them.
"DeSantis is just one bagpiper short of his final political funeral."
Mike Murphy (a former Republican strategist for John McCain and others) - ny times
The extra energy comes from the outside air. It's not a closed system, so you can get something for nothing.
The MRP projections do seem more credible than UNS from national VI - for example both MRPs and the local blog’s own assessment is that the Greens will pick up votes in both Oxford seats and that Dodds, while entirely safe, will see her 2019 majority cut despite the big national swing to Labour. Which feels right to me. Whereas UNS has her winning by more than ever.
Conservative MPs given the latest polling are you now going to wake-up & put your vote of no confidence letters in too? Nothing to lose we have a GE this year anyway. Time to get our party back & be real Conservatives. And save our country from the commies who backed Corbyn!
Of course, they might very well try, in which case the freeholder/managing agent will charge me a 4x mark-up on everything from scaffolding and installation to the cost of the unit itself, with a nice little backhander for their preferred contractor. Plus a bazillion quid to get someone out on a cherry picker every time the thing goes wrong.
Or they might move to a single source heating system for the entire block. Which will be even more expensive, with even more opportunities for lovely backhanders for their preferred contractor, plus because it's a commercial installation the price cap doesn't apply, so I will be paying commercial rates for the cost of my heating and water, with some people paying up to £2300 a month! source: https://inews.co.uk/news/paying-energy-bills-heat-networks-2175951
That and the Mainstay shootdown happened a long way to the east so a blue-on-blue is the more likely event.
The A-50 was always the target in the Shar sim. I think they paid BAE to model that then ran out of money and couldn’t get any DLC with other aircraft. I must have virtually shot down hundreds of them.
The extra investment needed will be painful - properly insulating homes, for example, massively so. And those of us in our sixties and above won't see much of the benefit of taking it seriously (and we're the ones who will have to pay a lot of the upfront).
But the returns a couple of decades down the road are very large.
YouGov have published their own write up of their MRP.
They also provide some notes of the Telegraph commentary.
The Daily Telegraph wrote that “In constituencies across England and Wales, the Labour vote is up by an average of just four per cent compared to 2019”. This is somewhat of a red herring. There is a sum using certain notional results whereby the estimated Labour share looks like a mean of a four point rise on their 2019 performance. However, this is not the correct way to look at either implied national changes nor what is happening at the constituency level.
If we aggregate up all our constituency level figures and then weight them according to likely voter population, the headline vote intention figures come out at the following:
Labour 39.5%, Conservatives 26%, Lib Dems 12.5%, Reform 9%, Greens 7.5%, SNP 3%, Plaid 0.5%, Others 2%.
A separate note by the Daily Telegraph suggested that the presence of Reform UK is the difference between Labour securing a majority and not. This is their own calculation using our data, and appears to be based simply on adding the Conservative and Reform UK vote shares together in each constituency, which is not a reliable way of measuring their impact.
Were Reform UK not to contest the election, it is extremely unlikely that all, or even a majority, of their voters would transfer to the Conservatives. Some would go to UKIP and splinter parties, some to Labour and other established parties, and some would simply stay at home – YouGov polling in October found only 31% of Reform UK voters would be willing to vote Conservative if Reform UK were not standing in their constituency.
Finally, the Daily Telegraph also said that the YouGov MRP model does not account for tactical voting in its estimated shares. This is not the case – our model does provision for tactical voting in its design, including by estimating constituency competition effects as part of the model equation. It does not, however, apply any post-hoc readjustments to vote share estimates based on any assumed model of tactical voting beyond what we already have in the data.
We need to build real affordable housing, preferably publicly owned so that they are allowed to make a loss for some time, and reform of landlording. We should look into tax incentives against owning second, third and fourth properties that you only use in the summer, or spring, or to rent out. We should look into sustainable housing, retirement villages that are designed for use primarily by the elderly, and making sure when new communities are built the infrastructure will be funded to match. Since the coalition made infrastructure spending linked to allowing development, meaning that you cannot get a new doctor or school unless you already accept private development, you have seen services become worse and people increasingly using those worse services and infrastructure as the reason they don't want an influx of more people in the area via development or immigration.
Immigration barely scratches the surface on this issue - if people come here on work visas they're renting the same overpriced flats as the rest of us, and if not they're being crammed into people's sheds 30 at a time so slum landlords can make fat cash. They're as much a victim of this as the younger generation.
Here is US Congressman Robert Garcia (Dem, Cali) after the secret UFO hearing last week
https://x.com/oanasa_x_/status/1746002396134674750?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
Look at his demeanour. The body language. What does it say?
Recall, I am not claiming we are being visited by aliens, I AM claiming that, at the very least, the US Establishment is behaving with extreme oddness on this whole topic. And the oddness only grows. Who knows why
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uap-ufo-briefing-house-inspector-general-intelligence-community/
In the US, then, almost all Republicans chose the first, and about half of Democrats chose the second. The results were similar in the UK, with almost all Conservatives choosing the first, and about half of Labour members choosing the second.
This helps explain many things, including the religious beliefs of many Greens. If, they think, our nations have sinned against Mother Nature, we deserve some punishment.
(For the record: I would choose the first, for both nations, and think much data supports me. If anyone is interested in the specifics, I may be able to find descriptions of the polls, but won't promise to even look until at least next weekend.)
(Some may be skeptical that "Again" is applicable here...)
Funny story, shows my ignorance, the bloke said to me “it’s going to be nineteen ninety five to replace it” and I thought he meant twenty quid!
I fear you are ignoring the obvious.
There are other pressures on housing that means that even a stable population would require more homes to be built: for instance, fewer people in each home over time (AIUI), or old housing stock being replaced; but blaming second home owners when the obvious issue is immigration is ridiculous.
If you think immigration hasn't put pressure on housing, I might suggest you visit my town. Now, the immigrants in my town are generally nice people (especially the Turks and Poles...), but the idea that immigration has no effect is stupid.
If total net migration to the UK is 300,000, and the average family has three people in a house, then that is 100,000 houses having to be built each year. That's a half to a third of all the new houses in the UK.
For about £4000 or so you should be able to get a battery as well which would save the energy you don’t use immediately for later in the day
They just see their bills going up, and the government subsidies going to people richer than them.
Just thinking, now you're well and truly back on PB we can do a bet if you like to supplement our current one.
We 'cash out' the £300/£100 'Starmer PM post GE' bet at say £250 to me. I think that's slightly in your favour at current prices.
But we don't settle. Instead we do a 'double or quits' on Labour outright majority at the GE.
If it's 100 or above I win £500
If it's below 100 we are Flat
How does that sound?
Odd things happening in the US is err, not odd at all.
I was thinking more about, for example, the current media campaign against electric vehicles. The implication is that people would be stupid to buy them because they cannot (yet) do all that petrol/diesel cars can and for the same or lower cost. The idea that people might perhaps be prepared to endure any slight hardship, such as a 20 minute wait to recharge, in order to lessen their impact on the environment is, apparently, laughable. It seems that altruism is for idiots.
That is a big ask "for the greater good" whatever tf that is.
Why don't you turn off your computer (let's round it up to an hour, say) and do nothing - you can imagine yourself at a BP garage on the A3 for example.
It will be for the greater good.
Let us know how you get on when you turn the laptop back on.
But it doesn't capture 'future' tactical voting - i.e. people yet to be persuaded (by active local campaigns and/or formal tactical voting drives) to switch their vote between the opposotion parties based on who they think best placed to win.
But without immigration we would have other different crises.
The answer, of course, is to plan for immigration and build appropriate amounts, of not just housing, but also wider infrastructure.
Any other irrelevant questions?
No.
Simply no.
You have got your own political bugbears, and are desperately trying to put the 'reasons' onto those. Instead of looking at the reality (or realty...) as I did with the figures below.
As ever, the situation is complex, but to say immigration is not a significant factor in the housing crisis is ridiculous.
(And before anyone pipes up, I am not anti-immigration for rather obvious reasons...)
Part of the lament of the Red Wall towns is that opportunities have moved away from them. Which is true, sad, but probably inevitable. Larger cities (which doesn't have to mean just London) are where it's at.