Howdy, Stranger!

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

Housing: Who to blame and the solution – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 20 in General
Housing: Who to blame and the solution – politicalbetting.com

"It’s Tony Blair’s fault if you can’t buy a house", according to a recent Telegraph columnLast year, 52% of Brits put a great/fair level of blame for UK housing problems on Labour govts from 1997-2010 – but 71% say the same of Tory govts since 2010https://t.co/nLilJLTnQt pic.twitter.com/JD18tDySMX

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,826
    First like Rishi
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,100
    One substantive point in Reeves speech last night was a promise to change the planning system and remove barriers to construction and development. Its been promised before but it would be a great thing for the new government to achieve because it could make a material difference to growth.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,888
    Oh lord give us housing, just not near me.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,352
    Anecdata: becoming a homeowner has coincided with me* moving away from the Tories. We were first time buyers in 2015, which was also the last year I seriously considered voting Conservative.

    *or them moving away from me is perhaps more accurate
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,765
    FPT
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I'm sure there'll be rejoicing somewhere or other.




    https://x.com/BelTel/status/1770415800391725416?s=20

    Here, in a jungly guest house on the Caribbean coast in Palomino, Colombia, there is modest rejoicing

    Varadkar is an odious, Anglophobic Woke twat
    If any people have a right to hate the UK / Britain / England - it's the Irish. I can't even be bothered to go into the conversation as to whether or not Varadkar is Anglophobic or not; I am willing to defend the proposition that Irish people are allowed to hold nothing but disdain for the UK Government, the monarchy, and even its peoples, based on the long and bloody history of violence enacted on the Irish and the island of Ireland throughout the last half century going up to disgusting crimes committed within many of our life times.

    The colonial wars, the genocide, the occupations, the use of sectarian divisions, the war crimes etc. etc. And like it's hard to even be like "pffft, the past is in the past" when that only really stopped in the 90s. Barely a generation ago.
    Barely a generation ago the Irish were slaughtering British civilians on the streets of London. I know this because I actually SAW one bomb go off

    Otherwise, good point
    As ever republic apologists just ignore the grim details. Irish republicans have killed more Irish Catholics than anyone else. Though laundries run by nuns give them a run for their money.
    The potato famine killed maybe a million. That beats your examples.
    I once read the Atlas of World Population History, in the reference section of my local library.
    It graphed, over time, the population of modern-day countries.
    The only population falls comparable to the Black Death, or a visit from Genghis Khan or Timberlane, were Ireland in the 1840s and Poland 1939-1946.
    That’s bollocks. Look at some of the data from the Americas

    Some of the native societies colonised by the Spanish declined by 90-95% - they were in essence wiped out

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4994967_The_Depopulation_of_Hispanic_America_after_the_Conquest

    With all the workers dead - due to serfdom, disease, murder, famine - the Spanish and Portuguese had to import more. Hence, slavery. Worse than anything in your list
    Disease likely did the majority of the killing.
    Population crash was of a similar magnitude in North America in the early colonial period (though more poorly documented).
    Certainly a lot of disease, smallpox &c

    However on various islands, especially, the Spanish basically destroyed whole populations with actual murder and brutal forced labour. Also in the mines of Bolivia

    It’s one reason I am now obsessed with the Kogi people in this bit of Colombia. WHAT a survival. They only survived because they kept going higher and higher up these coastal mountains. Intriguingly, their first retreat from the coast occurred as “Colombia” was invaded by brutal colonisers (possibly cannibalistic) from the Caribbean - long before the Europeans showed up

    The Rest is History did a fantastic eight-part series on the fall of the Aztecs and it really is an amazing time in history with extraordinary consequences.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-fall-of-the-aztecs-the-adventure-begins-part-1/id1537788786?i=1000633588776
    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this house weirdly and poetically symbolic in the story of the Americas

    (This is honestly a good one: an amazing story)

    Nothing but white space in your post? Got to be the White House in a snowstorm. After it was burnt by the Brits and became the Blackened House first.
    Now edited

    There are actually enough clues in that photo for a really smart person - who knows their history - to make an educated guess
    Simon Bolivar?
    No, much much weirder than that

    OK some more clues, the house is not in the New World - as you can see from the roof and the vegetation, it is surely Meditteranean. You can now guess where. So how would it have an imperiously weird link with the story of the Americas?
    I'll go with it being the birthplace of Hernan Cortez, in Medellin, Castille
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    edited March 20
    sarissa said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    Leon said:

    I'm sure there'll be rejoicing somewhere or other.




    https://x.com/BelTel/status/1770415800391725416?s=20

    Here, in a jungly guest house on the Caribbean coast in Palomino, Colombia, there is modest rejoicing

    Varadkar is an odious, Anglophobic Woke twat
    If any people have a right to hate the UK / Britain / England - it's the Irish. I can't even be bothered to go into the conversation as to whether or not Varadkar is Anglophobic or not; I am willing to defend the proposition that Irish people are allowed to hold nothing but disdain for the UK Government, the monarchy, and even its peoples, based on the long and bloody history of violence enacted on the Irish and the island of Ireland throughout the last half century going up to disgusting crimes committed within many of our life times.

    The colonial wars, the genocide, the occupations, the use of sectarian divisions, the war crimes etc. etc. And like it's hard to even be like "pffft, the past is in the past" when that only really stopped in the 90s. Barely a generation ago.
    Barely a generation ago the Irish were slaughtering British civilians on the streets of London. I know this because I actually SAW one bomb go off

    Otherwise, good point
    As ever republic apologists just ignore the grim details. Irish republicans have killed more Irish Catholics than anyone else. Though laundries run by nuns give them a run for their money.
    The potato famine killed maybe a million. That beats your examples.
    I once read the Atlas of World Population History, in the reference section of my local library.
    It graphed, over time, the population of modern-day countries.
    The only population falls comparable to the Black Death, or a visit from Genghis Khan or Timberlane, were Ireland in the 1840s and Poland 1939-1946.
    That’s bollocks. Look at some of the data from the Americas

    Some of the native societies colonised by the Spanish declined by 90-95% - they were in essence wiped out

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4994967_The_Depopulation_of_Hispanic_America_after_the_Conquest

    With all the workers dead - due to serfdom, disease, murder, famine - the Spanish and Portuguese had to import more. Hence, slavery. Worse than anything in your list
    Disease likely did the majority of the killing.
    Population crash was of a similar magnitude in North America in the early colonial period (though more poorly documented).
    Certainly a lot of disease, smallpox &c

    However on various islands, especially, the Spanish basically destroyed whole populations with actual murder and brutal forced labour. Also in the mines of Bolivia

    It’s one reason I am now obsessed with the Kogi people in this bit of Colombia. WHAT a survival. They only survived because they kept going higher and higher up these coastal mountains. Intriguingly, their first retreat from the coast occurred as “Colombia” was invaded by brutal colonisers (possibly cannibalistic) from the Caribbean - long before the Europeans showed up

    The Rest is History did a fantastic eight-part series on the fall of the Aztecs and it really is an amazing time in history with extraordinary consequences.

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-fall-of-the-aztecs-the-adventure-begins-part-1/id1537788786?i=1000633588776
    PICTURE QUIZ

    Why is this house weirdly and poetically symbolic in the story of the Americas

    (This is honestly a good one: an amazing story)

    Nothing but white space in your post? Got to be the White House in a snowstorm. After it was burnt by the Brits and became the Blackened House first.
    Now edited

    There are actually enough clues in that photo for a really smart person - who knows their history - to make an educated guess
    Simon Bolivar?
    No, much much weirder than that

    OK some more clues, the house is not in the New World - as you can see from the roof and the vegetation, it is surely Meditteranean. You can now guess where. So how would it have an imperiously weird link with the story of the Americas?
    I'll go with it being the birthplace of Hernan Cortez, in Medellin, Castille
    Not a bad guess. Tho he was born in Medellin in Extramadura, like most conquistadors (not Medellin Castille). The little town of Trujillo in Extramadura basically conquered South America by itself

    I actually gave the answer at the end of the last thread:



    Brilliant, SI, this is her house

    For those that don’t know the story, we are talking about the third (?) daughter of Emperor Moctezuma II, Princess Xipaguacin Moctezuma, who married conquistador Juan de Grau, Baron of Toleriu - who took her home to Spain as his wife. That is their house in Toleriu, in the Catalan Pyrenees, now a ruin used by cows. I tracked it down and research it all, and photographed the house in 2014.

    Xipaguacin died in that house in Toleriu in 1537, supposedly heartbroken and yearning for home

    Imagine her journey. She would have grown up in the imperial Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, watching her emperor father preside over all the great Aztec rituals, the piercing of the noble penises, the flaying of the foreign warriors, the parades of condemned prisoners being dragged up the sunburnt pyramids to have their beating hearts torn out by priests wearing human skin as suits and with the aristocrats watching on, adorned with jade and pearls and shimmering blue quetzal feathers…

    … and she ended her days making cheese in the kitchen of that house in Spain watching over the sheep in the Pyrenean drizzle, shouting at the neighbours…

    Sadly the stories of a great treasure buried in the area are probably untrue, though many have come looking
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019
    DavidL said:

    first time buyer

    Sadly this is a country of vested interests and the largest of these is property ownership. The haves are simply not interested in helping the have nots if the cost is the scarcity premium attached to their own assets. This is not a party political failure, it is a societal one.

    The dominant ideology of our times is that greed is good and to beggar thy neighbour.

    If the present situation was not the intended result, then those pushing that ideology for many decades might perhaps think about pushing a less anti-social set of values.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,978
    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,978

    The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.

    There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.

    We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.

    Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.

    We need to target negative net migration again. You'd be happier in Australia, wouldn't you?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,100

    DavidL said:

    first time buyer

    Sadly this is a country of vested interests and the largest of these is property ownership. The haves are simply not interested in helping the have nots if the cost is the scarcity premium attached to their own assets. This is not a party political failure, it is a societal one.

    The dominant ideology of our times is that greed is good and to beggar thy neighbour.

    If the present situation was not the intended result, then those pushing that ideology for many decades might perhaps think about pushing a less anti-social set of values.
    Who can resist this:https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=greed+is+good+speech+wall+street&mid=8EA8F79F25245E55C5888EA8F79F25245E55C588&FORM=VIRE
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.

    There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.

    We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.

    Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.

    We need to target negative net migration again. You'd be happier in Australia, wouldn't you?
    I always thought that Cameron had a plan to encourage emigration when he promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,100

    The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.

    There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.

    We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.

    Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.

    We need to target negative net migration again. You'd be happier in Australia, wouldn't you?
    I always thought that Cameron had a plan to encourage emigration when he promised to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
    Was there not a lot of luvvies who promised to leave the country if the nasty Tories regained power? He maybe took them at their word.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406

    The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.

    There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.

    We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.

    Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.

    There are a couple of pretty conclusive takedowns of the Guardian article on TwiX, the most helpful being this from Robert Colville https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1770193571531895095?s=20

    TLDR the majority of the assertions made in the article are bollocks.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191
    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,594
    edited March 20
    FPT
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,195
    PB starts a housing thread and within minutes, YouTube suggests Poirot: the Adventure of the Cheap Flat. Not that the interweb tracks your data or anything.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019
    IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    The fiscal cupboard might be bare enough that a government is forced to tax property out of necessity.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184

    Time to close down The Spectator.

    THE BRITISH RIGHT’S FAVORITE SEX OFFENDER

    What does a conservative magazine do when a columnist is convicted of attempted rape?


    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/panagiotis-taki-theodoracopulos-britain-right-sex-offender/677807/

    FavoUrite!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,867
    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,134
    edited March 20
    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    I am perplexed by stats again.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/net-migration

    It looks an awful lot like net migration grew dramatically during the last Labour administration and has been falling since.
  • DavidL said:

    first time buyer

    Sadly this is a country of vested interests and the largest of these is property ownership. The haves are simply not interested in helping the have nots if the cost is the scarcity premium attached to their own assets. This is not a party political failure, it is a societal one.

    The dominant ideology of our times is that greed is good and to beggar thy neighbour.

    If the present situation was not the intended result, then those pushing that ideology for many decades might perhaps think about pushing a less anti-social set of values.
    I am a 52 yr old local government employee of 27 years standing on just above current average UK income. Realistically I cannot afford a mortgage as with current rates and day to day living costs factored in it is untenable if I want to have a semblance of a decent life; IE the ability to afford to eat decent, healthy food, socialise once weekly and have one (UK) week long holiday annually. I do not have family to sub me the savings I don't have to start off on the road to home ownership and won't be leaving a property to anyone once I kick the bucket. I therefore on balance, rent instead. Monthly rent £1180 + bills. Not cheap.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    PB starts a housing thread and within minutes, YouTube suggests Poirot: the Adventure of the Cheap Flat. Not that the interweb tracks your data or anything.

    The blurb on my Christmas Eve book this year ended with the words:

    "Is her greatest fear that she will be hunted down, or that she will never be found?"

    Perhaps the only thing worse than being tracked is not being tracked?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    I’m not sure PB is that capricious

    Rod Crosby got banned for persistent Holocaust denial, even when others begged him to stop because he was otherwise a valued poster. He continued

    I dunno about MrEd, I believe iSam felll out with one of the mods

    I do hope @truman hasn’t been banned simply for having provocative views, that would be self-harming for a site like PB
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,898
    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    An old man goes back, and thinks that much harm was done to the housing market by Margaret Thatcher’s sell-off of Council housing, without giving Councils the facility to replace at least some of them.
    Incidentally, some new houses are being built not far from use, and they are now on the market, so I looked them up. Cheapest, admittedly for a 3-bed, but doesn’t look very big, £464,000.
    Which seems like a lot, and a lot to fund.
  • IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    Planning is top of the list.

    Supply and demand determines prices. Planning restrictions cut supply.

    Investors only make money due to our planning system. Abolish that, construction would boom (from small scale developers who don't currently get permission) and investors would lose money.

    Anyone who loses money from a bad investment deserves as much sympathy as investors in Blockbuster, Woolworths, Wilkinsons and C&A.
  • DavidL said:

    first time buyer

    Sadly this is a country of vested interests and the largest of these is property ownership. The haves are simply not interested in helping the have nots if the cost is the scarcity premium attached to their own assets. This is not a party political failure, it is a societal one.

    The dominant ideology of our times is that greed is good and to beggar thy neighbour.

    If the present situation was not the intended result, then those pushing that ideology for many decades might perhaps think about pushing a less anti-social set of values.
    I am a 52 yr old local government employee of 27 years standing on just above current average UK income. Realistically I cannot afford a mortgage as with current rates and day to day living costs factored in it is untenable if I want to have a semblance of a decent life; IE the ability to afford to eat decent, healthy food, socialise once weekly and have one (UK) week long holiday annually. I do not have family to sub me the savings I don't have to start off on the road to home ownership and won't be leaving a property to anyone once I kick the bucket. I therefore on balance, rent instead. Monthly rent £1180 + bills. Not cheap.
    I prefer also to have a (bit) better quality of life than I would slogging my guts out trying to afford home ownership, of what are, in general terms of modern UK new builds, small and poor quality homes
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    I am perplexed by stats again.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/net-migration

    It looks an awful lot like net migration grew dramatically during the last Labour administration and has been falling since.
    And you’re wrong

    “Net migration into the UK was a record 745,000 last year, figures show - far higher than originally thought.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67506641
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    I’m not sure PB is that capricious

    Rod Crosby got banned for persistent Holocaust denial, even when others begged him to stop because he was otherwise a valued poster. He continued

    I dunno about MrEd, I believe iSam felll out with one of the mods

    I do hope @truman hasn’t been banned simply for having provocative views, that would be self-harming for a site like PB
    MrEd is on here - under a new name - from time to time.
    isam is also back (under his old name)
    Good
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,594

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    In magnitude? Yes (obviously). In category? No. However you slice it, Holocaust denial is, to put it mildly, a "provocative opinion" by definition. It's also wrong, both factually and morally, since the Holocaust existed. @Leon inhabits a milieu where having a "provocative opinion" gets you promoted not punched, and so forgets the literal meaning of the phrase. It was silly of him to think that PB runs by Spectator rules, when obviously it doesn't and shouldn't.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    In more "everywhere's hot" news, it was 41.9C on the coast of Namibia today. Average max temp there under the influence of the cold Benguela current is 22C.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,914
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    I am perplexed by stats again.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/net-migration

    It looks an awful lot like net migration grew dramatically during the last Labour administration and has been falling since.
    Sites like Macrotrends are often filled with garbage data, and you should be wary of them.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,978

    IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    Planning is top of the list.

    Supply and demand determines prices. Planning restrictions cut supply.

    Investors only make money due to our planning system. Abolish that, construction would boom (from small scale developers who don't currently get permission) and investors would lose money.

    Anyone who loses money from a bad investment deserves as much sympathy as investors in Blockbuster, Woolworths, Wilkinsons and C&A.
    Building regulations also have the same effect. It's no use relaxing planning if people can't build cheaply enough. Abolish building controls and let a thousand shanty towns bloom.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,914
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    I missed the one about poverty in rural Russia, which is annoying because I assume it was in response to my comment!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,166
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184
    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    14 YEARS OF TORY MIS-RULE!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Ah, Kalmykia, the only Buddhist part of Europe!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    I missed the one about poverty in rural Russia, which is annoying because I assume it was in response to my comment!
    It was very articulate (even if, it now seems, it came from Reddit not from @Truman)

    Worth digging up
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184
    Leon said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    I’m not sure PB is that capricious

    Rod Crosby got banned for persistent Holocaust denial, even when others begged him to stop because he was otherwise a valued poster. He continued

    I dunno about MrEd, I believe iSam felll out with one of the mods

    I do hope @truman hasn’t been banned simply for having provocative views, that would be self-harming for a site like PB
    My abiding memory of Rod was his almost obsessive, er, obsession with Swingback in 2009-10, round about the time I joined PB.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,594

    IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    Planning is top of the list.

    Supply and demand determines prices. Planning restrictions cut supply.

    Investors only make money due to our planning system. Abolish that, construction would boom (from small scale developers who don't currently get permission) and investors would lose money.

    Anyone who loses money from a bad investment deserves as much sympathy as investors in Blockbuster, Woolworths, Wilkinsons and C&A.
    Building regulations also have the same effect. It's no use relaxing planning if people can't build cheaply enough. Abolish building controls and let a thousand shanty towns bloom.
    @BartholomewRoberts idea on this is the best. Set out the codes and let developers develop.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,898

    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    14 YEARS OF TORY MIS-RULE!
    Well, at least the LibDems aren’t getting blamed any more! Although all the one-time LibDem ministers are out of Parliament now, as, to be fair, are most of their Conservative counterparts.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184
    edited March 20
    TimS said:

    In more "everywhere's hot" news, it was 41.9C on the coast of Namibia today. Average max temp there under the influence of the cold Benguela current is 22C.

    Only 17C in Barking Park today! Oh, well :lol:
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,463

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    "Truman" was an obvious Putin-bot/pimp/whatever, right from the get-go.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,867
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    I’m not sure PB is that capricious

    Rod Crosby got banned for persistent Holocaust denial, even when others begged him to stop because he was otherwise a valued poster. He continued

    I dunno about MrEd, I believe iSam felll out with one of the mods

    I do hope @truman hasn’t been banned simply for having provocative views, that would be self-harming for a site like PB
    MrEd is on here - under a new name - from time to time.
    isam is also back (under his old name)
    Yes, @TheKitchenCabinet (MrEd) does pop up occasionally.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,867

    TimS said:

    In more "everywhere's hot" news, it was 41.9C on the coast of Namibia today. Average max temp there under the influence of the cold Benguela current is 22C.

    Only 17C in Barking Park today! Oh, well :lol:
    Perfect day. Lovely spring afternoon up North (London).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,352

    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    14 YEARS OF TORY MIS-RULE!
    Well, at least the LibDems aren’t getting blamed any more! Although all the one-time LibDem ministers are out of Parliament now, as, to be fair, are most of their Conservative counterparts.
    Ed Davey? Or do I misunderstand 'ministers'?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,914
    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    Planning is top of the list.

    Supply and demand determines prices. Planning restrictions cut supply.

    Investors only make money due to our planning system. Abolish that, construction would boom (from small scale developers who don't currently get permission) and investors would lose money.

    Anyone who loses money from a bad investment deserves as much sympathy as investors in Blockbuster, Woolworths, Wilkinsons and C&A.
    Building regulations also have the same effect. It's no use relaxing planning if people can't build cheaply enough. Abolish building controls and let a thousand shanty towns bloom.
    @BartholomewRoberts idea on this is the best. Set out the codes and let developers develop.
    I think there does need to be some relaxation of building codes.

    For example, do we really need sprinkler systems in small apartment complexes?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    Indeed, it came up with @Leon after all :lol:
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Interesting an old one came back. I'd love to see the inner life and working habits of these trolls. Are they paid, or simply enjoy trolling? Are they working alone from home or sitting in some big centre somewhere? Who decided that PB is a good place to target? Who sets the rules - if they're working for money - on what to write about, what talking points to take? Are their posts monitored?

    That's why it's a shame none of them ever come clean. Imagine if, just once, someone joined and then started writing about their life on a troll farm, who they really are, how it all works.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Fair’s fair then. No complaints

    Do you personally think these trolls/bots are AI or human?

    I kind of want them to be AI, because the idea of someone doing all that just to get banned is quite pathetically sad. What is the point? He didn’t even make any seriously Putin-boosting remarks. Strange
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,191
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    The remarkable thing remains how you seem to expect us all to marvel at your foresight whilst we can all see that you’re so fixated on the detail that you have such little ability to pan out to take any sort of wider view.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    The remarkable thing remains how you seem to expect us all to marvel at your foresight whilst we can all see that you’re so fixated on the detail that you have such little ability to pan out to take any sort of wider view.
    QED. Another one of your endless boring yet slightly embittered remarks, devoid of humour and purpose, and clumsily written to boot; this stuff could easily be generated by GPT3 let alone GPT5; I am beginning to have suspicions that you are an early AI model
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,438

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    Labour should institute the 'Ministry of public works'. Get a little competition back in the market.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    The remarkable thing remains how you seem to expect us all to marvel at your foresight whilst we can all see that you’re so fixated on the detail that you have such little ability to pan out to take any sort of wider view.
    QED. Another one of your endless boring yet slightly embittered remarks, devoid of humour and purpose, and clumsily written to boot; this stuff could easily be generated by GPT3 let alone GPT5; I am beginning to have suspicions that you are an early AI model
    One of those fun little mutual running beefs that PB enjoys. Nigel and Malcolm being another.
    We probably all have someone on here who is a natural nemesis. Either because what they write or how they write it irritates us irrationally, or because they have the most opposite views to us on various topics (or both).
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413
    edited March 20
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Interesting an old one came back. I'd love to see the inner life and working habits of these trolls. Are they paid, or simply enjoy trolling? Are they working alone from home or sitting in some big centre somewhere? Who decided that PB is a good place to target? Who sets the rules - if they're working for money - on what to write about, what talking points to take? Are their posts monitored?

    That's why it's a shame none of them ever come clean. Imagine if, just once, someone joined and then started writing about their life on a troll farm, who they really are, how it all works.
    Good theme for a novel! And it's not as if only one country fights information warfare online.

    In other news, apparently Penny Mordaunt was asked when she left today's cabinet meeting whether she backed the prime minister. Her response: "I’m getting on with my job". Hmmm.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-face-tory-1922-32392457

    Perhaps she'll wait until after 2 May to resign? What metric is sensible to use to gauge how the Tories perform, overall, in the locals? They are defending 613 seats according to Wikipedia. Maybe the % of those that they lose?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_local_elections#Predictions
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Interesting an old one came back. I'd love to see the inner life and working habits of these trolls. Are they paid, or simply enjoy trolling? Are they working alone from home or sitting in some big centre somewhere? Who decided that PB is a good place to target? Who sets the rules - if they're working for money - on what to write about, what talking points to take? Are their posts monitored?

    That's why it's a shame none of them ever come clean. Imagine if, just once, someone joined and then started writing about their life on a troll farm, who they really are, how it all works.
    Unless they really ARE AI

    Indeed the more i think about it, the more it makes sense. I can imagine one guy in charge of 50 or 100 accounts, generating talking points on various forums in the West, some madly pro Putin, some more subtle, with a bit of personality programmed in

    That person - in charge of the 50 bots - would get paid. Maybe every so often he has to dive in and write something personally, or edit a remark, who knows

    if you can steer the political debate on 50 forums that is worth a decent hourly wage?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,909

    IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    Planning is top of the list.

    Supply and demand determines prices. Planning restrictions cut supply.

    Investors only make money due to our planning system. Abolish that, construction would boom (from small scale developers who don't currently get permission) and investors would lose money.

    Anyone who loses money from a bad investment deserves as much sympathy as investors in Blockbuster, Woolworths, Wilkinsons and C&A.
    Building regulations also have the same effect. It's no use relaxing planning if people can't build cheaply enough. Abolish building controls and let a thousand shanty towns bloom.
    Building controls are a far bigger issue than planning controls. They add massively to costs and time for building.

    That said even with the current controls the actual standard of building in the UK is so appalling that there are now new companies making a very nice business out of snagging surveys to show new homeowners all the ways in which the builders have failed to reach basic standards.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,898
    Zoomed into a lecture on AI on Monday. Fascinating, although some of the maths were a bit beyond this elderly pharmacist, whose highest maths qualification was GCE O level almost 70 years ago. Give the right system a sentence and it will produce anything you want.
    Presents a real challenge for creative writers, though.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,796

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    Labour should institute the 'Ministry of public works'. Get a little competition back in the market.
    Or even copy "Freddie Mac" and "Fannie Mae"?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,909

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    Labour should institute the 'Ministry of public works'. Get a little competition back in the market.
    We do need a massive programme of public housebuilding again. Build a load of new towns like we did pre WW2. But do it the way the Dutch and Belgians do it. Take the power away from the developers.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    Two major problems with housing:

    1. Prices are unaffordable. It doesn't matter if the land value has shot up or there's a shortage of brickies or whatever. If the sale price is bonkers and with it the deposit needed and the mortgage payable then we have a problem.

    2. The insanity of private sector apartment blocks. Far too many people reporting real difficulties with insane service charges, no guarantee that currently sensible charges won't increase vastly for no reason, and that ignores the "whoops is your building a fire hazard? Your problem" issue

    We need to build, but the private sector has made a mess of this. Councils should be taking on development sites and getting the LHA to build. That way supply is increased but properties are actually affordable.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,335

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    Labour should institute the 'Ministry of public works'. Get a little competition back in the market.
    We do need a massive programme of public housebuilding again. Build a load of new towns like we did pre WW2. But do it the way the Dutch and Belgians do it. Take the power away from the developers.
    Presumably the legal powers are all still there... are they?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Donkeys said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Interesting an old one came back. I'd love to see the inner life and working habits of these trolls. Are they paid, or simply enjoy trolling? Are they working alone from home or sitting in some big centre somewhere? Who decided that PB is a good place to target? Who sets the rules - if they're working for money - on what to write about, what talking points to take? Are their posts monitored?

    That's why it's a shame none of them ever come clean. Imagine if, just once, someone joined and then started writing about their life on a troll farm, who they really are, how it all works.
    Good theme for a novel! And it's not as if only one country fights information warfare online.

    In other news, apparently Penny Mordaunt was asked when she left today's cabinet meeting whether she backed the prime minister. Her response: "I’m getting on with my job". Hmmm.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-face-tory-1922-32392457

    Perhaps she'll wait until after 2 May to resign? What metric is sensible to use to gauge how the Tories perform, overall, in the locals? They are defending 613 seats according to Wikipedia. Maybe the % of those that they lose?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_local_elections#Predictions
    The expectation management statements will start coming out soon, so we'll be able to calibrate from those. Tories will set a low bar so we will need to add a few dozen seats to their "target" to get to their real target. And Labour will do likewise.

    More often than not in locals in recent years the results have been disappointing for both Tories (who do worse than even their pessimists expected) and Labour (who are not very adept at expectation management, and have also tended to rack up wins late the next morning after the media narrative has already been set).

    I think the Greens will outperform all expectations and have quite a big night. Four reasons for this:

    1. Expectations of minor parties tends to be exceeded most of the time
    2. It's early May: people will have been out and about in nature, we may have had our first heatwave by then, and they'll feel a bit eco
    3. They have made strong progress in a number of councils in recent years so they have a much better base from which to grow than before. In many areas they will feel like the tactical choice
    4. There may be a voter desire to deliver a Gaza-related shot across the bows to Labour
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    The remarkable thing remains how you seem to expect us all to marvel at your foresight whilst we can all see that you’re so fixated on the detail that you have such little ability to pan out to take any sort of wider view.
    QED. Another one of your endless boring yet slightly embittered remarks, devoid of humour and purpose, and clumsily written to boot; this stuff could easily be generated by GPT3 let alone GPT5; I am beginning to have suspicions that you are an early AI model
    One of those fun little mutual running beefs that PB enjoys. Nigel and Malcolm being another.
    We probably all have someone on here who is a natural nemesis. Either because what they write or how they write it irritates us irrationally, or because they have the most opposite views to us on various topics (or both).
    I irritate people DELIBERATELY, to be fair. It keeps the site peppy and I do enjoy a good honest argument. Don’t we all? Otherwise why are we here? Hopefully I don’t overdo it

    Also I irritate people just by whizzing around the world having fun and then posting photos of it. That’s quite obnoxious. It irritates me when I am stuck at home in British drizzle and someone posts a photo of something glamorously exotic

    Eg I got slightly and enviously annoyed by your photos of that vineyard in Georgia (I tried to hide it, hope I succeeded). At the same time, I love these travel photos and personal stories, they are inspiring and interesting, and they keep PB diverse

    I even enjoy @IanB2’s photos of his dog in Norway etc (don’t tell him)

  • TazTaz Posts: 11,016
    TimS said:

    The Grauniad is utterly insane if they think we don't need housing construction.

    There simply aren't enough houses in the country. We need millions more, not hundreds of thousands more.

    We need villages to become towns, towns to become cities and cities to become bigger. We need new towns. We need massive, mammoth house building.

    Any NIMBYs need to go to hell. No tolerance for their BS.

    There are a couple of pretty conclusive takedowns of the Guardian article on TwiX, the most helpful being this from Robert Colville https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1770193571531895095?s=20

    TLDR the majority of the assertions made in the article are bollocks.
    He’s one of the few right of centre commentators I like to read. He is right on the money when it comes to housing and when it comes to growth.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Interesting an old one came back. I'd love to see the inner life and working habits of these trolls. Are they paid, or simply enjoy trolling? Are they working alone from home or sitting in some big centre somewhere? Who decided that PB is a good place to target? Who sets the rules - if they're working for money - on what to write about, what talking points to take? Are their posts monitored?

    That's why it's a shame none of them ever come clean. Imagine if, just once, someone joined and then started writing about their life on a troll farm, who they really are, how it all works.
    Unless they really ARE AI

    Indeed the more i think about it, the more it makes sense. I can imagine one guy in charge of 50 or 100 accounts, generating talking points on various forums in the West, some madly pro Putin, some more subtle, with a bit of personality programmed in

    That person - in charge of the 50 bots - would get paid. Maybe every so often he has to dive in and write something personally, or edit a remark, who knows

    if you can steer the political debate on 50 forums that is worth a decent hourly wage?
    Truman did feel more like an actual generative AI than many of the others. The written style had that strangely, how can I describe it, "Usborne" quality to it that characterises the main LLMs.
  • RichardrRichardr Posts: 81
    Leon said:

    Blair, Brown, Cameron and Osborne share most of the blame for deliberately inflating demand (both physical and financial) for housing assets with loose monetary policy and mass immigration.

    They are partly to blame, but it is the Tories under Boris, Truss and Sunak who have let immigration explode to even greater and more absurd levels: 1.4m in two years. Blair could only dream of that (and probably did)
    Blame her for all sorts of things, but Truss was hardly in power long enough to change anything, not least immigration policy.
  • Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    The planning system approves developments in blocs to developers who naturally have their own interests in hand.

    Abolish the planning system and move to a code based system and we can have more individual construction rather than blocs and no developer can control the market.

    If houses are built individually rather than in blocs then cutting development means someone else builds it instead, rather than higher profits.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.

    Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    It has been like that for years. Using Stockton-on-Tees as an example, the borough has both seen tens of thousands of new homes built over 10 years AND been told by the government that not enough homes are being built.

    If the council isn't building enough then the law allows developers to override everyone and build what they want where they want. So get permission, don't build the council-imposed mix of affordable housing, then get permission to build what you want for big profits!
  • DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 413
    edited March 20

    Two major problems with housing:

    1. Prices are unaffordable. It doesn't matter if the land value has shot up or there's a shortage of brickies or whatever. If the sale price is bonkers and with it the deposit needed and the mortgage payable then we have a problem.

    2. The insanity of private sector apartment blocks. Far too many people reporting real difficulties with insane service charges, no guarantee that currently sensible charges won't increase vastly for no reason, and that ignores the "whoops is your building a fire hazard? Your problem" issue

    We need to build, but the private sector has made a mess of this. Councils should be taking on development sites and getting the LHA to build. That way supply is increased but properties are actually affordable.

    Re. point 2: how to standardise occupier freehold in flats, i.e. if you "own" a flat you actually own it, rather than just a lease on it? Bit of a difficult one, that one. Comparable to asking how to slash average personal debt.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,019

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    The housebuilders are acting like OPEC, and restrict supply to support prices. There are two alternative approaches for dealing with this.

    1. Bart's approach of abolishing all planning restrictions so that there's no shortage of land to be built on, and any builder who sits on undeveloped land will face another builder taking the sale by building first.

    Negative consequences/criticisms - unplanned building will make it harder to provide services to new housing. Urban sprawl will become a blight on the countryside. It might not even work, as the demand for housing is concentrated in particular hotspots, developers might still be able to control the market in particular areas.

    2. Allow local councils to build houses again, so that a steady supply of council housing stops developers from distorting the market, and also acts as a quality standard for private housing to compete against.

    Negative consequences/criticisms - wherever would cash-starved councils find the money to become housebuilders? They might be rubbish at it.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    pigeon said:

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.

    Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
    We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.

    Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!

    Never again.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    O/T A new poll (Economist) has just come out showing Biden ahead of Trump (44/43).

    That is the fifth poll in a row where Biden is in the lead (or a tie in one case). The moving average is now tied 45/45.

    There seems to be a clear movement to Biden.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    You mean the ten paragraph description he said he'd taken from Reddit?
    lol. Fair enough. He said that?

    I missed this crucial bit of info

    In which case, yeah: quite possibly AI
    Their IP address kept on changing and eventually they used an IP address of a previously banned troll.
    Interesting an old one came back. I'd love to see the inner life and working habits of these trolls. Are they paid, or simply enjoy trolling? Are they working alone from home or sitting in some big centre somewhere? Who decided that PB is a good place to target? Who sets the rules - if they're working for money - on what to write about, what talking points to take? Are their posts monitored?

    That's why it's a shame none of them ever come clean. Imagine if, just once, someone joined and then started writing about their life on a troll farm, who they really are, how it all works.
    Unless they really ARE AI

    Indeed the more i think about it, the more it makes sense. I can imagine one guy in charge of 50 or 100 accounts, generating talking points on various forums in the West, some madly pro Putin, some more subtle, with a bit of personality programmed in

    That person - in charge of the 50 bots - would get paid. Maybe every so often he has to dive in and write something personally, or edit a remark, who knows

    if you can steer the political debate on 50 forums that is worth a decent hourly wage?
    Truman did feel more like an actual generative AI than many of the others. The written style had that strangely, how can I describe it, "Usborne" quality to it that characterises the main LLMs.
    Have you seen the latest chat/literary output by Claude 3?

    Some of it is brilliant, what gives it away as AI is the fact it is TOO eloquent, if anything - the vocabulary is too large and the wordplay too intense

    The time is fast approaching when they really will replace virtually all writers. 5 years? Less?
  • Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    It has been like that for years. Using Stockton-on-Tees as an example, the borough has both seen tens of thousands of new homes built over 10 years AND been told by the government that not enough homes are being built.

    If the council isn't building enough then the law allows developers to override everyone and build what they want where they want. So get permission, don't build the council-imposed mix of affordable housing, then get permission to build what you want for big profits!
    Because tens of thousands is farcically nowhere near enough.

    We need millions.

    How much population growth has there been?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,150
    Donkeys said:

    Two major problems with housing:

    1. Prices are unaffordable. It doesn't matter if the land value has shot up or there's a shortage of brickies or whatever. If the sale price is bonkers and with it the deposit needed and the mortgage payable then we have a problem.

    2. The insanity of private sector apartment blocks. Far too many people reporting real difficulties with insane service charges, no guarantee that currently sensible charges won't increase vastly for no reason, and that ignores the "whoops is your building a fire hazard? Your problem" issue

    We need to build, but the private sector has made a mess of this. Councils should be taking on development sites and getting the LHA to build. That way supply is increased but properties are actually affordable.

    Re. point 2: how to standardise occupier freehold in flats, i.e. if you "own" a flat you actually own it, rather than just a lease on it? Bit of a difficult one, that one. Comparable to asking how to slash average personal debt.
    I'm not a lawyer, but I have have negotiated my way in and out of various contracts. There is a basic fairness rule in that (AIUI) you can't have clauses which are inherently unfair, and you can't unilaterally variance a contract.

    So where people find themselves stuck with a service charge increasing exponentially because the building has been sold to SharkBastardInc, we should just be able to strike down any charges which are above inflation or can't be justified. And no, "fuck you, pay up" isn't justification despite so many of these companies having that as their stated policy.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,594
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Planning is way down the list of reasons to blame.

    Taxes on property ownership are way too low, if you care to look around the rest of the world. With years of low interest rates, the return on other investments has been so low that UK property has turned into an investment rather than simply a place to live, such that the older age group now owns a significant slice of the property being occupied by younger age groups. The UK is wide open to foreign criminalsinvestors buying up prime property, often then left empty, in a way that almost all other countries simply aren’t. And property developers land bank permissions and deliberately develop at a slow rate lower than demand, to maximise their profits on new build developments. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of unfulfilled planning permissions for new housing.

    Sort out the anomalous financial climate around housing, and 75% of the problem would be solved. But our inadequate politicians would rather pretend that removing planning controls will somehow magic away all the other problems that they themselves have created.

    Planning is top of the list.

    Supply and demand determines prices. Planning restrictions cut supply.

    Investors only make money due to our planning system. Abolish that, construction would boom (from small scale developers who don't currently get permission) and investors would lose money.

    Anyone who loses money from a bad investment deserves as much sympathy as investors in Blockbuster, Woolworths, Wilkinsons and C&A.
    Building regulations also have the same effect. It's no use relaxing planning if people can't build cheaply enough. Abolish building controls and let a thousand shanty towns bloom.
    @BartholomewRoberts idea on this is the best. Set out the codes and let developers develop.
    I think there does need to be some relaxation of building codes.

    For example, do we really need sprinkler systems in small apartment complexes?
    I'm going to have to say something I should do more often: I don't have enough knowledge to answer that question.

    I feel slightly grimy. I have not fulfilled my function and am now questioning my existence. :(
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,212
    Labour leads by 24% in the Red Wall.

    Lowest Conservative vote % since Sunak became PM.

    Highest ever Reform %.

    Red Wall VI (16 March):

    Labour 48% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (-1)
    Reform UK 16% (+2)
    Liberal Democrat 5% (-1)
    Other 6% (-1)

    Changes +/- 25 Feb


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1770495525084631118
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    The remarkable thing remains how you seem to expect us all to marvel at your foresight whilst we can all see that you’re so fixated on the detail that you have such little ability to pan out to take any sort of wider view.
    QED. Another one of your endless boring yet slightly embittered remarks, devoid of humour and purpose, and clumsily written to boot; this stuff could easily be generated by GPT3 let alone GPT5; I am beginning to have suspicions that you are an early AI model
    One of those fun little mutual running beefs that PB enjoys. Nigel and Malcolm being another.
    We probably all have someone on here who is a natural nemesis. Either because what they write or how they write it irritates us irrationally, or because they have the most opposite views to us on various topics (or both).
    I irritate people DELIBERATELY, to be fair. It keeps the site peppy and I do enjoy a good honest argument. Don’t we all? Otherwise why are we here? Hopefully I don’t overdo it

    Also I irritate people just by whizzing around the world having fun and then posting photos of it. That’s quite obnoxious. It irritates me when I am stuck at home in British drizzle and someone posts a photo of something glamorously exotic

    Eg I got slightly and enviously annoyed by your photos of that vineyard in Georgia (I tried to hide it, hope I succeeded). At the same time, I love these travel photos and personal stories, they are inspiring and interesting, and they keep PB diverse

    I even enjoy @IanB2’s photos of his dog in Norway etc (don’t tell him)

    That vineyard in Georgia remained enviable for a further 12 hours or so then I came down with the worst diarrhoea in a decade, miles from any open pharmacy, and started cursing the place.

    I unfortunately find my conflict-avoidance reflex kicks in just as things become peppy, which can be a handicap on a forum like this.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,958
    A Labour manifesto pledge to improve availability and affordability of housing would be difficult for the Tories to oppose, if they want to increase their votes beyond landlords, property developers and homeowning pensioners.

    It could include:
    Allowing Local Authorities to fund housebuilding.
    An easing of planning restrictions.
    Reducing the time that developers are allowed to start building before consent is lost.
    Fewer planning restrictions on small, say up to 12 house, developments.
    If wanting to build more than 250 properties, developers must provide the infrastructure first.
    A levy on new properties, which is passed to Local Authorities and ringfenced for provision of services - schools, etc.
    An annual property levy or replacing council tax with local income tax.

    Remember, property investors, investments can go down as well as up.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,016
    Talking of leaseholder charges this seems manifestly unfair.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckkvkv32e1ro
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406
    Barnesian said:

    O/T A new poll (Economist) has just come out showing Biden ahead of Trump (44/43).

    That is the fifth poll in a row where Biden is in the lead (or a tie in one case). The moving average is now tied 45/45.

    There seems to be a clear movement to Biden.

    Do you know what the comparators are from the same pollster? There seems to be a very large spread between companies so some of the apparent swing can simply be phasing of poll releases.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,662
    Speaking of photos here’s one. Do we have any horticulturalists on the site? Or er palm/cactusologists?

    THIS is just growing, fervently, in my hotel garden, amongst the green iguanas and the Andean squirrels

    What is it? All I know is that it is quite magnificent




    I’m gonna see if an AI app can identify it. An interesting use-case
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,184

    Labour leads by 24% in the Red Wall.

    Lowest Conservative vote % since Sunak became PM.

    Highest ever Reform %.

    Red Wall VI (16 March):

    Labour 48% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (-1)
    Reform UK 16% (+2)
    Liberal Democrat 5% (-1)
    Other 6% (-1)

    Changes +/- 25 Feb


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1770495525084631118

    Broken, sleazy Labour, Libdems AND Tories on the slide!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,129

    pigeon said:

    Agree about the NIMBYS but we also need to deal with one of the biggest obstacles to housebuilding - the building firms.

    How can it be acceptable that last year, when prices stopped rising as sharply as they had been, the big developers cut back on their building programmes specificaly citing the platauing of house prices?

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-13052563/Housebuilders-cut-Number-new-homes-planned-fell-44-year.html

    Housebuilders are sitting on hundredas of thousands of plots with planning permission and are refusing to build on them.

    That, and the regulation of new builds is almost non-existent. If you're lucky you get a structurally sound ludicrously expensive rabbit hutch out of your typical volume housebuilder. If you're unlucky the thing is full of serious faults that they don't want to spend money putting right and, as many horrified buyers have quickly discovered, they don't want to do the work and you can do nothing more than beg to get them to do it. The NHBC certificate is worthless.

    Personally, I wouldn't buy a new build under any circumstances. Not good value, not worth the risk.
    We bought new build Barrett in 2005 and we got a good one. Garden full of rubble with major drainage issues. Wall cavities not full of insulation as supposed to be. Cracks in wall and ceiling plaster as the building settled.

    Then we had a hole open up in the downstairs ceiling right above the front door. Just as it was on sale with people coming for viewings. And - having had conversations with various neighbours - we appear to have got a good one!

    Never again.
    Standards have clearly deteriorated over time. My flat was built about 20 years ago and, apart from a little bit of plaster cracking and the windows being a little on the cheap side, it's fine.

    Nowadays you can barely move for tales of wonky walls and collapsed ceilings. There was even a case in Cambridge recently where the shysters built houses that started falling down before they'd finished building them. Those got torn down, but you bet if they could've disguised the problems with plaster and paint they would've flogged them off.
  • TazTaz Posts: 11,016
    It isn’t only flats where there is a problem with service charges.

    As I am sure some people are aware councils refuse to adopt parts of some estates newly built so people who own the freehold to the home end up with service charges. Some of which double every 10 years or so.

    https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/fleecehold-estates-like-the-post
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    I'm sure I'm the only person who doesn't know this but do the Conservative/Labour voters refer to the way people voted at the last election or the way they intend to vote now?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,406

    Labour leads by 24% in the Red Wall.

    Lowest Conservative vote % since Sunak became PM.

    Highest ever Reform %.

    Red Wall VI (16 March):

    Labour 48% (-1)
    Conservative 24% (-1)
    Reform UK 16% (+2)
    Liberal Democrat 5% (-1)
    Other 6% (-1)

    Changes +/- 25 Feb


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1770495525084631118

    Notably Con + Reform is 8 points below Labour, even if their combined position vs LLG has improved by a couple of points.

    This does rather put paid to the stereotype of the Red Wall as full of Alf Garnets though. 40% inclined to right wing parties, and only 16% (higher than nationally but not much) actually buying any of the Reform party schtick.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,234
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    viewcode said:

    FPT

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    @MarqueeMark it wouldn't surprise me if Totnes became a three-way marginal

    Strictly speaking there isn’t going to be a Totnes constituency any more. It is being subsumed by South Devon. But Electoral Calculus agrees with you: 37% Cons, 32% Lab, 31% LibDem.

    I’m in the neighbouring Newton Abbot constituency and under the boundary changes it is a lot more marginal. A quite plausible Lab GAIN. I’d be delighted to see Anne Morris get the boot.
    Clearly a seat that needs a steer on tactical voting.
    I don’t think the outcome of the general election is going to be determined by tactical voting. Tories lose, Labour win. More or less tactical voting may effect the majority, but polling doesn’t suggest that tactics voting is critical.
    The extent of tactical voting is important only for those of us betting on LibDem seat numbers.
    May I inquire why @Truman was banned?

    Asking for a friend

    He was fun and interesting. Sure he was provocative and right wing and possibly pro-Putin (tho quite subtle about it) - I can see why his views might have outraged people, but then @148grss views are outrageous to me, but I don’t want him cancelled, quite the opposite

    However I expect you have a solid moderators’ reason for cancelling him, and if so fair enuff
    I didn't ban him, so I don't know.
    I just want reassurance people aren’t being banned for provocative opinions.
    You must be new here.

    That reassurance doesn't exist. As @RodCrosby , @isam and @MrEd can testify, having provocative opinions is pretty much the only thing that gets you reliably banned. PB operates on pub rules: if it pisses @OGH or his helpers off you get thrown out. If you want to complain that you are being cancelled I understand that the Spectator pays complainants to complain about viscious[1] things on Twitter.

    [1] Yes I know it's "vicious". But Rob Liddle is really oily and oozes dribble, so, y'know...
    Somewhat false equivalence between the odious Crosby and @iSam and @MrEd.

    Rod Crosby was a virulent antisemite and Holocaust-denier. "Provocative opinions" underplays it somewhat.
    My guess having read the final few posts of Truman was that he was becoming so obviously artificial as well as spammy that the mods decided enough was enough. The concern-trolling was ramping up, it was mainly just pasted material from other websites, and it was starting to look very bot-like (real bot - there were certainly stylistic hints this might be the case - or paid human bot).

    That's what distinguished DJ41 from the others. Yes some fruity views on a range of things and very clearly Russia-aligned, but an actual human who applied his brain to posts and wrote eloquently.
    You genuinely think he was AI?

    Surely not. His long ten paragraph description of life and poverty in provincial Russia sounded like a real human to me, 100%, and also like someone with genuine and deep experience of Russia, The way he joked about Kalmykia Oblast… that was not AI. If it was AI then it has got staggeringly good and we might as well all give up

    In truth, he came across as more real and with more interesting and varied views than some of our regular, long-standing commenters…
    Such Remarkable gullibility
    You are one of the commenters i am referring to. He - a bot - was wittier and more interesting than you. Admittedly not hard, but it shows how much AI is improving
    The remarkable thing remains how you seem to expect us all to marvel at your foresight whilst we can all see that you’re so fixated on the detail that you have such little ability to pan out to take any sort of wider view.
    QED. Another one of your endless boring yet slightly embittered remarks, devoid of humour and purpose, and clumsily written to boot; this stuff could easily be generated by GPT3 let alone GPT5; I am beginning to have suspicions that you are an early AI model
    One of those fun little mutual running beefs that PB enjoys. Nigel and Malcolm being another.
    We probably all have someone on here who is a natural nemesis. Either because what they write or how they write it irritates us irrationally, or because they have the most opposite views to us on various topics (or both).
    Malc and I long ago reached a position of mutual respect.
    Won't hear a word against him.

    Oh, you mean the other one.
Sign In or Register to comment.