This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
This is proposed frequently and never works. Houses are mostly built by housebuilders in estates. They innovate slowly and brick/breezeblock houses with sloped tiled roofs built on site is not likely to change quickly. There are some innovations (I think some builders do timber frame with brick over, and some Scottish firms use SIPS) but the modular building market is never going to take off without massive subsidy
Container-based housing is awful. They are prone to damp and too small.
All these numbers say to me is that Trump is a really, really unpopular candidate beyond his base. The Democrats had two years to find someone to take him on and destroy him and what he stands for but they didn't. So now they have Harris - sentient, relatively young but also not great. This would not have even been close if the Democrats had acted responsibly and made clear to Biden long ago that he was a one term president.
American politics would be in a much better place if neither Biden nor Trump had tried to continue, made their decisions at the start of the year, and allowed the parties to run regular primaries to battle through their ideas.
Yes, albeit if Haley had won the GOP primaries and Harris had won the Democratic primaries I don't think anyone doubts Haley would have won comfortably.
I do.
Haley would have won Independents by a landslide over Harris, they are only split now as Trump is GOP nominee again
As we've seen in the last couple of weeks, your assumptions aren't certainties.
Well even Trump still leads the current RCP average against Harris, whose 46.1% average would be the lowest voteshare for a Democratic presidential candidate this century. She can still win for as Bloomberg shows she seems to be performing better than Hillary did for example in some key battleground states but she is not that great a candidate otherwise
I remember the days when you said that a Californian liberal like Harris had absolutely no chance against Trump, and they should stick with Biden. Now you're saying "she can still win", so I detect significant movement.
I seem to recall Walter Mondale being mentioned as a guide to how Harris would perform.
More Dukakis who got 45.6% in 1988, about what Harris is now polling
Remind me, who was the third party candidate taking a significant share in 1988?
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Starts in prior 5 years: 8290 Completions in prior 5 years: 7650
Population est: 539,669 (0.31% / 0.28% / yr - very slightly above average, not near the 0.52% needed to hit Labour's target)
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
This is proposed frequently and never works. Houses are mostly built by housebuilders in estates. They innovate slowly and brick/breezeblock houses with sloped tiled roofs built on site is not likely to change quickly. There are some innovations (I think some builders do timber frame with brick over, and some Scottish firms use SIPS) but the modular building market is never going to take off without massive subsidy
Container-based housing is awful. They are prone to damp and too small.
Though the only reason that the oligopoly of builders builds in estates is because that's who and how they get permission.
If everyone had permission to do whatever they wanted, so long as it was safe and legal, then if someone wanted to build a container based house or any other innovation they could, so long as it met building codes.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Good question but damn all to do with the housing subthread you've presumably accidentally quoted.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Starts in prior 5 years: 8290 Completions in prior 5 years: 7650
Population est: 539,669 (0.31% / 0.28% / yr - very slightly above average, not near the 0.52% needed to hit Labour's target)
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
It’s 125mph and maintained and signalled as part of the WCML. So if it is a ‘branch line’ somebody needs to tell Network Rail.
*checks library of over 200 railway books, including two about the politics of railway management I wrote myself*
Obviously I’m not a lifelong enthusiast.
*Checks itinerary including all those trips on the WCML north from Rugeley and lots of trainspotting at Colwich*
Obviously I never see the tracks, or know what I’m looking at.
Mr Bedfordshire is right that there are capacity issues but being very stubborn in refusing to admit to what was, ultimately, a minor if amusing mistake. Not sure why.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Can you explain that one to me? Why is lower average completions per year per population better for this purpose?
Sorry my formula is upside down.
It is Population / The ave number of completions per year for the previous 10 years.
Yes - just got to that.
The numbers provided represent "Dwellings built per X people each year on average."
So Milton Keynes is "one dwelling annually on average built per 165 people", or in the terms I suggested 0.6%.
And we are perhaps ignoring things such as conversions to HMO etc.
Ashfield is 134 = 0.75% and Mansfield is 112 = 0.9%, so we are pulling our weight and more on this data.
Its better than elsewhere but only pulling weight on the pathetically low 300k housing target though.
Given our chronic housing shortage, population growth and demographic growth we should be aiming for a minimum of 1 million new builds per annum. Which after a decade would still leave us with a serious housing shortage, just not as chronic as today.
Bad news for @MattW, Ashfield and Mansfield aren't hitting the required rate. Bassetlaw is though.
IF the required rate is 1/192 per pop annum, then they are hitting it, surely - as being lower numbers, with best at the bottom of the inverted list?
But at least I can get a plumber !
I have just received a note wrt yesterdays boiler fitting that an invoice has been emailed and payment would be appreciated by lunchtime.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
It’s 125mph and maintained and signalled as part of the WCML. So if it is a ‘branch line’ somebody needs to tell Network Rail.
*checks library of over 200 railway books, including two about the politics of railway management I wrote myself*
Obviously I’m not a lifelong enthusiast.
*Checks itinerary including all those trips on the WCML north from Rugeley and lots of trainspotting at Colwich*
Obviously I never see the tracks, or know what I’m looking at.
Mr Bedfordshire is right that there are capacity issues but being very stubborn in refusing to admit to what was, ultimately, a minor if amusing mistake. Not sure why.
Blimey, and I thought going to a station to note which trains were coming through was weird.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
Even if he deleted the image ?
To be honest in terms of “WhatsApp” messages I thought recent judgements have added a bit of nuance. Something along the lines of if you receive but do nothing with the messages and didn’t request them it could be a defence.
I seem to remember there was a case where someone tried to run that defence. Was having some success, until prosecution pointed out he’d saved the questionable images/videos to a secured application on his phone.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
It’s 125mph and maintained and signalled as part of the WCML. So if it is a ‘branch line’ somebody needs to tell Network Rail.
*checks library of over 200 railway books, including two about the politics of railway management I wrote myself*
Obviously I’m not a lifelong enthusiast.
*Checks itinerary including all those trips on the WCML north from Rugeley and lots of trainspotting at Colwich*
Obviously I never see the tracks, or know what I’m looking at.
Mr Bedfordshire is right that there are capacity issues but being very stubborn in refusing to admit to what was, ultimately, a minor if amusing mistake. Not sure why.
Blimey, and I thought going to a station to note which trains were coming through was weird.
Junctions are more fun. They slow down for them, you see.
Downside is you’re further away, but given a lot of trains (freight especially) pass the platforms at Rugeley at rather high speeds that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
This is proposed frequently and never works. Houses are mostly built by housebuilders in estates. They innovate slowly and brick/breezeblock houses with sloped tiled roofs built on site is not likely to change quickly. There are some innovations (I think some builders do timber frame with brick over, and some Scottish firms use SIPS) but the modular building market is never going to take off without massive subsidy
Container-based housing is awful. They are prone to damp and too small.
Vistry have been doing a lot of work on Timber Frame homes (to the extent they have multiple factories building the frames). This news items highlights some of the issues they have
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
On a further point of order:
The Aliens Act 1905 stopped that last one nine years before 1914.
It was primarily aimed at Jewish emigrants fleeing Russia in the aftermath of the Tsar’s pogroms and the chaos of the 1905 revolution.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
This is proposed frequently and never works. Houses are mostly built by housebuilders in estates. They innovate slowly and brick/breezeblock houses with sloped tiled roofs built on site is not likely to change quickly. There are some innovations (I think some builders do timber frame with brick over, and some Scottish firms use SIPS) but the modular building market is never going to take off without massive subsidy
Container-based housing is awful. They are prone to damp and too small.
Vistry have been doing a lot of work on Timber Frame homes (to the extent they have multiple factories building the frames). This news items highlights some of the issues they have
Implementing the planning process at a local level is proving problematic ... difficult to build standard form houses across the UK on a consistent basis. Complex planning requirements and the lengthy timeframes involved as well as the disparity between different local authorities
I wonder if stripping local authorities of planning responsibility and having a national set consistent building standards, where people could build what they want, where they want, if its done within acceptable standards, would help address any of those concerns?
Firstly whites are clearly not the least criminal ethnic group. Black people at 4% of the overall population are 12% of the prison population Alarmingly among under 18s, they are 30% of the prison population. There are several times more Muslims in prison than there are people of all other minority religions combined.
When you actually think about the diversity of the black and Muslim population you might argue lumping them all together is unwise. But it does suggest trouble within SOME black and SOME Muslim communities.
One probably should control for age and sex. I.e., young men and disproportionately criminal. If most of the people of type [x] are young men, then that could skew numbers quite a lot.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
You can have unrestricted immigration or a welfare state. You cannot have both.
The UK has chosen the former and the latter is doomed.
On whether there's a pattern: I'd tentatively suggest a correlation with population density. Which makes sense: the lower the population density, the easier to find land for housing.
There's possibly also a secondary bit of calculus about where densities are high but land values are REALLY high you can overcome this.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
I don't think I've ever seen a more creative list of other people who's fault it was (including sundry institutions, a level crossing for making her late, and the Returning Officer for preventing her making a speech); I can't see that she has resiled from a single thing.
TBH she sounds like General Paulus in about 1953, spending his declining years explaining why Stalingrad was not his responsibility. Imo the difference is that he had some reasonable excuses.
You actually think that she should have ignored centuries of convention, and the returning officer, and barged her way to the front to make an unprecedented loser's speech? You'd have squealed with indignation if that had happened. Some people here are pitiably twisted in their Truss hatred.
I think you need to try a bit harder. Unprecedented loser's speech?
Formally it's in the discretion of the Returning Officer. I've watched hundreds of count announcements, and runners up not making speeches is rare iirc. I can't recall where that has not happened. Anyone else?
A former PM being prevented from making such a concession speech? Cloud-cuckoo land. As an agricultural area, there should lots of pigs in Downham Market - perhaps some can fly.
There's only one person who has put La Truss where she is now. The first thing she needs to do is look in the mirror.
If would have been unprecedented in a constituency where they don't do losers speeches. Did the returning officer announce her and then look blank as she stalked off? Or were they ushered away in the same way they always do it. You are suggesting that she should have pulled rank and done a speech anyway because??
It's you and your excuses for your own boorish vituperation that are pathetic. And perhaps it's you who should take a good look in the mirror.
In 2017 the Returning Officer refused to allow James Airey to speak in Westmorland and Lonsdale when he had come within 777 votes of defeating Tim Farron. That was seen as very bad form and the same candidate was allowed to speak in 2019 after a similar but not as spectacular result.
I loath Liz Truss like I loath no other Tory polititcian. I blame her for a lot of the present disaster the country finds itself in. But I can fully believe a partisan Returning Officer would not have allowed her to speak.
It's not a question of a partisan returning officer - it is just the convention in that constituency that they only do a winner's speech. MattW is suggesting that Liz Truss should have overturned that convention, purely to make him and his fellow posters look less foolish it would appear.
The only person who is claiming it is a convention is Truss, who claimed she "non-verbally" indicated she wanted to speak.
Perhaps she should have "verbally" said she wanted to speak.
Nobody to blame but herself.
What are you talking about you utter loon? She hasn't 'blamed' anyone, she was asked the straightforward question of why she didn't make a loser's speech and said that a) they don't in her constituency and b) she was prepared to make one if the returning officer had decided to abandon the convention and ask her to make one, but since he/she didn't, Truss didn't.
I don't see what could be plainer or more prosaic. And we now have PBers tying themselves in ridiculous knots suggesting that Truss should have demanded to make a speech, or that Truss has decided to tell a provable lie on a podcast, on this of all issues, when throughout her entire career she has been disarmingly (and sometimes foolishly) frank. Certain PBers need to reflect on the abuse they dish out to this woman, and whether it is at all proportionate or warranted, rather than these ridiculous contortions.
On whether there's a pattern: I'd tentatively suggest a correlation with population density. Which makes sense: the lower the population density, the easier to find land for housing.
There's possibly also a secondary bit of calculus about where densities are high but land values are REALLY high you can overcome this.
Tower Hamlets seems to have been able to build plenty of housing and it's only 20 sq km. Obviously it's all going to be flats but that's expected in high density areas anyway.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
It’s 125mph and maintained and signalled as part of the WCML. So if it is a ‘branch line’ somebody needs to tell Network Rail.
*checks library of over 200 railway books, including two about the politics of railway management I wrote myself*
Obviously I’m not a lifelong enthusiast.
*Checks itinerary including all those trips on the WCML north from Rugeley and lots of trainspotting at Colwich*
Obviously I never see the tracks, or know what I’m looking at.
Mr Bedfordshire is right that there are capacity issues but being very stubborn in refusing to admit to what was, ultimately, a minor if amusing mistake. Not sure why.
Blimey, and I thought going to a station to note which trains were coming through was weird.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
On whether there's a pattern: I'd tentatively suggest a correlation with population density. Which makes sense: the lower the population density, the easier to find land for housing.
There's possibly also a secondary bit of calculus about where densities are high but land values are REALLY high you can overcome this.
Correlation but not exclusively. Eg looking at that map it looks like most of Cumbria is very lacking in construction.
And of course even 0-200 is insufficient construction. We should be looking more towards ~0-40 pop/completion as ideal.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
It’s 125mph and maintained and signalled as part of the WCML. So if it is a ‘branch line’ somebody needs to tell Network Rail.
*checks library of over 200 railway books, including two about the politics of railway management I wrote myself*
Obviously I’m not a lifelong enthusiast.
*Checks itinerary including all those trips on the WCML north from Rugeley and lots of trainspotting at Colwich*
Obviously I never see the tracks, or know what I’m looking at.
Mr Bedfordshire is right that there are capacity issues but being very stubborn in refusing to admit to what was, ultimately, a minor if amusing mistake. Not sure why.
Blimey, and I thought going to a station to note which trains were coming through was weird.
No, Vance is weird.
Indeed he is. But he does not define the full parameters of weirdness.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
You can have unrestricted immigration or a welfare state. You cannot have both.
The UK has chosen the former and the latter is doomed.
I agree with your former point (about the welfare state), but the UK clearly does not have unrestricted immigration. It might have more than you, I or many people might want, but it nevertheless has many restrictions on people coming legally to work or to study.
To be totally clear, I did not say this was an issue in Southport barbarism. Indeed, as I explained to @Iromg, rush to opportunistically link that tragedy to a local mosque was gruesome/wrong-headed. As were riots. However, we need to understand & discuss openly reasons why there's a general sense of public frustration, fury & fear about a sense of lawlessness and double-standards @TalkTV"
I don't think I've ever seen a more creative list of other people who's fault it was (including sundry institutions, a level crossing for making her late, and the Returning Officer for preventing her making a speech); I can't see that she has resiled from a single thing.
TBH she sounds like General Paulus in about 1953, spending his declining years explaining why Stalingrad was not his responsibility. Imo the difference is that he had some reasonable excuses.
You actually think that she should have ignored centuries of convention, and the returning officer, and barged her way to the front to make an unprecedented loser's speech? You'd have squealed with indignation if that had happened. Some people here are pitiably twisted in their Truss hatred.
I think you need to try a bit harder. Unprecedented loser's speech?
Formally it's in the discretion of the Returning Officer. I've watched hundreds of count announcements, and runners up not making speeches is rare iirc. I can't recall where that has not happened. Anyone else?
A former PM being prevented from making such a concession speech? Cloud-cuckoo land. As an agricultural area, there should lots of pigs in Downham Market - perhaps some can fly.
There's only one person who has put La Truss where she is now. The first thing she needs to do is look in the mirror.
If would have been unprecedented in a constituency where they don't do losers speeches. Did the returning officer announce her and then look blank as she stalked off? Or were they ushered away in the same way they always do it. You are suggesting that she should have pulled rank and done a speech anyway because??
It's you and your excuses for your own boorish vituperation that are pathetic. And perhaps it's you who should take a good look in the mirror.
In 2017 the Returning Officer refused to allow James Airey to speak in Westmorland and Lonsdale when he had come within 777 votes of defeating Tim Farron. That was seen as very bad form and the same candidate was allowed to speak in 2019 after a similar but not as spectacular result.
I loath Liz Truss like I loath no other Tory polititcian. I blame her for a lot of the present disaster the country finds itself in. But I can fully believe a partisan Returning Officer would not have allowed her to speak.
It's not a question of a partisan returning officer - it is just the convention in that constituency that they only do a winner's speech. MattW is suggesting that Liz Truss should have overturned that convention, purely to make him and his fellow posters look less foolish it would appear.
The only person who is claiming it is a convention is Truss, who claimed she "non-verbally" indicated she wanted to speak.
Perhaps she should have "verbally" said she wanted to speak.
Nobody to blame but herself.
What are you talking about you utter loon? She hasn't 'blamed' anyone, she was asked the straightforward question of why she didn't make a loser's speech and said that a) they don't in her constituency and b) she was prepared to make one if the returning officer had decided to abandon the convention and ask her to make one, but since he/she didn't, Truss didn't.
I don't see what could be plainer or more prosaic. And we now have PBers tying themselves in ridiculous knots suggesting that Truss should have demanded to make a speech, or that Truss has decided to tell a provable lie on a podcast, on this of all issues, when throughout her entire career she has been disarmingly (and sometimes foolishly) frank. Certain PBers need to reflect on the abuse they dish out to this woman, and whether it is at all proportionate or warranted, rather than these ridiculous contortions.
"Convention in this seat" is rather ridiculous an excuse when there hasn't been an incumbent losing in that seat in well over her lifetime. There is no convention there.
What there is, nationwide, is a convention that losing incumbents can make a speech if they choose to do so.
Its not the returning officers job to determine whether she makes a speech or not, she can say she wants to - if the returning officer then says no, she'd have a point, but she did not.
Thanks, yes, there's quite a lot of switching. I'll have a go at tidying up later when I'm not supposed to be doing something else! Thanks very much for gathering the data.
It seems to me that the outcome is very much down to individual local authorities.
If that is the case you can see why the government is wanting to set targets but I wonder what the actual penalty will be for not meeting them?
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
Even if he deleted the image ?
All that does is delete the reference to the image in the devices "index file"
The image remains in the "spare memory" until written over.
With magnetic hard disk drives they can even use clever software to recover the image *after* it has been written over.
Leaving illegal images aside, this is also a major security risk if selling on a phone due to private (eg. financial) data on it and why a lot of corporations destroy old devices rather than sell them).
To be totally clear, I did not say this was an issue in Southport barbarism. Indeed, as I explained to @Iromg, rush to opportunistically link that tragedy to a local mosque was gruesome/wrong-headed. As were riots. However, we need to understand & discuss openly reasons why there's a general sense of public frustration, fury & fear about a sense of lawlessness and double-standards @TalkTV"
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
You can have unrestricted immigration or a welfare state. You cannot have both.
The UK has chosen the former and the latter is doomed.
I agree with your former point (about the welfare state), but the UK clearly does not have unrestricted immigration. It might have more than you, I or many people might want, but it nevertheless has many restrictions on people coming legally to work or to study.
Fair comment, although the quantity of illegal migrants landing but not being expelled muddies the water a bit.
Obviously if they could just buy a ticket to St Pancras, the numbers would be rather higher.
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
And revealing could be something as simple as a damp or rather low cut T shirt if Female.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
Have we had what is a Tram and what is a Train yet? :-)
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
The Left says of Southport: bunch of racist Far Right idiots. The ordinary ppl of Southport say enough of the lies. Southport is an example of multiculturalism failing. But it doesn’t have to fail. I try here in 10 mins @arc_forum to explain why/how. http://youtu.be/Mn_OohfGTYk?si…"
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
If something happens eg a car accident and they confiscate your phone as part of the investigation then if they find something like that you are wholly at the mercy of Plod/CPS using common sense rather than looking for an easy nick to get their performance stats up.
If you were involved in the riots last night and got your phone confiscated then don't expect common sense to be used.
There are more subtle ways to crush dissidents than throwing them out of the window of a high rise like the FSB (KGB) do.
And even if they don't bring charges, they take about a year to decide and you might be banned from home because social services deem you a risk to your own kids. The process can be the punishment.
On the question of speeches at declarations, Michael Portillo famously spoke after losing Enfield Southgate in 1997 coining the immortal phrase " a truly terrible night for the Conservatives" which got recycled four weeks ago.
My understanding is there is no convention but up to local "custom". It may be where a seat doesn't usually change hands, it's just easier to let the winning candidate do all the thank yous so everyone can go home to their beds (or someone else's, I don't judge).
I think Neil Hamilton spoke after Martin Ball won Tatton also in 1997 so maybe it was different then.
I can understand the protocol to allow a defeated MP to say their farewells but by 5.30am I suspect hearing from a defeated MP isn't at the top of anyone's list of priorities.
On topic, US polls don't mean anything till after Labor Day. Harris is getting a novelty bounce but three months is a long time in politics and once she's a stale fact of life and the Republicans have gone to work on her extremist record, I can see that wearing off. She's also a lousy campaigner, at least if her past record is anything to go by. She's probably a weaker candidate than 2020 Biden, though a stronger one than 2024 Biden.
Still all to play for for both sides, no matter the desperate spinning from European and American liberal commentariat.
[Declaring my interest - I have a $5 bet with a friend in Seattle that Trump would beat Biden. Not sure what we'll do now that Harris is running instead].
On topic, US polls don't mean anything till after Labor Day. Harris is getting a novelty bounce but three months is a long time in politics and once she's a stale fact of life and the Republicans have gone to work on her extremist record, I can see that wearing off. She's also a lousy campaigner, at least if her past record is anything to go by. She's probably a weaker candidate than 2020 Biden, though a stronger one than 2024 Biden.
Still all to play for for both sides, no matter the desperate spinning from European and American liberal commentariat.
[Declaring my interest - I have a $5 bet with a friend in Seattle that Trump would beat Biden. Not sure what we'll do now that Harris is running instead].
Someone is bound to write in Biden so technically you're a winner.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
To be totally clear, I did not say this was an issue in Southport barbarism. Indeed, as I explained to @Iromg, rush to opportunistically link that tragedy to a local mosque was gruesome/wrong-headed. As were riots. However, we need to understand & discuss openly reasons why there's a general sense of public frustration, fury & fear about a sense of lawlessness and double-standards @TalkTV"
This seems to be a new take from the British Right (I've heard similar on here): 'Look, I'm not saying ethnic minorities are to blame for all the country's ills, but the fact that a lot of the natives think that way means their very presence is in some way to blame for the national mood of disquiet.'
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
Have we had what is a Tram and what is a Train yet? :-)
In addition, for compatibility with running upon the National Rail network, the tram-trains are fitted with Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS) and GSM-R equipment.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
Sounds like it has been restricted for 1.1 centuries then.....
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
Have we had what is a Tram and what is a Train yet? :-)
In addition, for compatibility with running upon the National Rail network, the tram-trains are fitted with Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS) and GSM-R equipment.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
Though presumably if someone could reasonably demonstrate that they had not done anything untoward and it reached the court they could request a jury trial and the jury could in theory apply common sense and acquit them?
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
I think asking for pictures of mens rea is what got him into trouble in the first place (with apologies for the bad joke - and to Richard Prior for butchering the joke from See No Evil, Hear no Evil)
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
If something happens eg a car accident and they confiscate your phone as part of the investigation then if they find something like that you are wholly at the mercy of Plod/CPS using common sense rather than looking for an easy nick to get their performance stats up.
If you were involved in the riots last night and got your phone confiscated then don't expect common sense to be used.
There are more subtle ways to crush dissidents than throwing them out of the window of a high rise like the FSB (KGB) do.
And even if they don't bring charges, they take about a year to decide and you might be banned from home because social services deem you a risk to your own kids. The process can be the punishment.
Great. My question was of course a hypothetical/asking for a friend
To be totally clear, I did not say this was an issue in Southport barbarism. Indeed, as I explained to @Iromg, rush to opportunistically link that tragedy to a local mosque was gruesome/wrong-headed. As were riots. However, we need to understand & discuss openly reasons why there's a general sense of public frustration, fury & fear about a sense of lawlessness and double-standards @TalkTV"
This seems to be a new take from the British Right (I've heard similar on here): 'Look, I'm not saying ethnic minorities are to blame for all the country's ills, but the fact that a lot of the natives think that way means their very presence is in some way to blame for the national mood of disquiet.'
These people have been around for 20+ years minimum and nothing that can be said is going to change their viewpoint and enjoyment of violence..
So the best thing to do is to read them the riot act when they appear and treat them to the appropriate sentences for not dispersing when asked.
I don't think I've ever seen a more creative list of other people who's fault it was (including sundry institutions, a level crossing for making her late, and the Returning Officer for preventing her making a speech); I can't see that she has resiled from a single thing.
TBH she sounds like General Paulus in about 1953, spending his declining years explaining why Stalingrad was not his responsibility. Imo the difference is that he had some reasonable excuses.
You actually think that she should have ignored centuries of convention, and the returning officer, and barged her way to the front to make an unprecedented loser's speech? You'd have squealed with indignation if that had happened. Some people here are pitiably twisted in their Truss hatred.
I think you need to try a bit harder. Unprecedented loser's speech?
Formally it's in the discretion of the Returning Officer. I've watched hundreds of count announcements, and runners up not making speeches is rare iirc. I can't recall where that has not happened. Anyone else?
A former PM being prevented from making such a concession speech? Cloud-cuckoo land. As an agricultural area, there should lots of pigs in Downham Market - perhaps some can fly.
There's only one person who has put La Truss where she is now. The first thing she needs to do is look in the mirror.
If would have been unprecedented in a constituency where they don't do losers speeches. Did the returning officer announce her and then look blank as she stalked off? Or were they ushered away in the same way they always do it. You are suggesting that she should have pulled rank and done a speech anyway because??
It's you and your excuses for your own boorish vituperation that are pathetic. And perhaps it's you who should take a good look in the mirror.
In 2017 the Returning Officer refused to allow James Airey to speak in Westmorland and Lonsdale when he had come within 777 votes of defeating Tim Farron. That was seen as very bad form and the same candidate was allowed to speak in 2019 after a similar but not as spectacular result.
I loath Liz Truss like I loath no other Tory polititcian. I blame her for a lot of the present disaster the country finds itself in. But I can fully believe a partisan Returning Officer would not have allowed her to speak.
It's not a question of a partisan returning officer - it is just the convention in that constituency that they only do a winner's speech. MattW is suggesting that Liz Truss should have overturned that convention, purely to make him and his fellow posters look less foolish it would appear.
The only person who is claiming it is a convention is Truss, who claimed she "non-verbally" indicated she wanted to speak.
Perhaps she should have "verbally" said she wanted to speak.
Nobody to blame but herself.
What are you talking about you utter loon? She hasn't 'blamed' anyone, she was asked the straightforward question of why she didn't make a loser's speech and said that a) they don't in her constituency and b) she was prepared to make one if the returning officer had decided to abandon the convention and ask her to make one, but since he/she didn't, Truss didn't.
I don't see what could be plainer or more prosaic. And we now have PBers tying themselves in ridiculous knots suggesting that Truss should have demanded to make a speech, or that Truss has decided to tell a provable lie on a podcast, on this of all issues, when throughout her entire career she has been disarmingly (and sometimes foolishly) frank. Certain PBers need to reflect on the abuse they dish out to this woman, and whether it is at all proportionate or warranted, rather than these ridiculous contortions.
Misogyny is okay as long as you don't like the person !!!!
Truss seems fair game.
She was a useless PM but some of the hatred/commentary thrown at her seems a little off. The same people are the ones (mainly posh boys) who think Angela Rayner is ace and a victim of anti working class prejudice.
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
On topic, US polls don't mean anything till after Labor Day. Harris is getting a novelty bounce but three months is a long time in politics and once she's a stale fact of life and the Republicans have gone to work on her extremist record, I can see that wearing off. She's also a lousy campaigner, at least if her past record is anything to go by. She's probably a weaker candidate than 2020 Biden, though a stronger one than 2024 Biden.
Still all to play for for both sides, no matter the desperate spinning from European and American liberal commentariat.
[Declaring my interest - I have a $5 bet with a friend in Seattle that Trump would beat Biden. Not sure what we'll do now that Harris is running instead].
Someone is bound to write in Biden so technically you're a winner.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
Though presumably if someone could reasonably demonstrate that they had not done anything untoward and it reached the court they could request a jury trial and the jury could in theory apply common sense and acquit them?
A problem with that is that it is illegal to show the image to a jury. They are just told that an expert has deemed it to be a category 1 or 5 etc image.
On topic, US polls don't mean anything till after Labor Day. Harris is getting a novelty bounce but three months is a long time in politics and once she's a stale fact of life and the Republicans have gone to work on her extremist record, I can see that wearing off. She's also a lousy campaigner, at least if her past record is anything to go by. She's probably a weaker candidate than 2020 Biden, though a stronger one than 2024 Biden.
Still all to play for for both sides, no matter the desperate spinning from European and American liberal commentariat.
[Declaring my interest - I have a $5 bet with a friend in Seattle that Trump would beat Biden. Not sure what we'll do now that Harris is running instead].
Someone is bound to write in Biden so technically you're a winner.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
Though presumably if someone could reasonably demonstrate that they had not done anything untoward and it reached the court they could request a jury trial and the jury could in theory apply common sense and acquit them?
A problem with that is that it is illegal to show the image to a jury. They are just told that an expert has deemed it to be a category 1 or 5 etc image.
That is one of those times where I would be very happy to let someone else do the work and just give me their opinion...
After all I wouldn't be able to work out what category is should be in anyway..
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
Would you support a ban on mortgages over 3x the main earner's salary?
No.
I believe in supply and demand.
I would support ramping up supply until prices come down.
Demand is potentially infinite unless you restrict immigration.
That is a ridiculous comment.
You don't understand what "infinite" means, but that's a common hyperbole, so whatever.
More importantly, immigration is restricted and has been restricted for centuries. Unrestricted immigration is not on the cards. So why write "unless you restrict immigration"?
Errr: point of order up until World War 1 (barely a century ago):
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
I withdraw “centuries” and wish to replace it with “over a century”.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
Though presumably if someone could reasonably demonstrate that they had not done anything untoward and it reached the court they could request a jury trial and the jury could in theory apply common sense and acquit them?
A problem with that is that it is illegal to show the image to a jury. They are just told that an expert has deemed it to be a category 1 or 5 etc image.
So the expert has some legal dispensation to view it then. Presumably the same for the people who scan the phone.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
My data is of course out of date as the ONS don't update weekly...
For instance most of the "stunning" Knights View development might not show up in the Bassetlaw 2022/23 starts.
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
Which of course is why each local authority sets its own tax rates for the bands. Anything done with a national scale of current house prices will make most of SE England totally unaffordable for those who currently live there. Even worse, it gives government a vested interest in keeping house prices as high as posible, as we see with stamp duty at the moment.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
Same where I live, I suspect, and I live in a perfectly nice area. My house was set at Band D.
I don't think the govt would ever have the courage to revalue council tax bands. They should. But they won't.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
What other strict liability offences are there? Is there no permissible defence or mitigation? Might this be construed as a touch oppressive?
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
Which of course is why each local authority sets its own tax rates for the bands. Anything done with a national scale of current house prices will make most of SE England totally unaffordable for those who currently live there. Even worse, it gives government a vested interest in keeping house prices as high as posible, as we see with stamp duty at the moment.
Not really, house prices/rent should already make it unaffordable by that logic.
Housing tax should be a percentage of land value. If land value goes down then, your taxes go down, and vice-versa. No reason to encourage artificially high land values then.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
What other strict liability offences are there? Is there no permissible defence or mitigation? Might this be construed as a touch oppressive?
The big area for strict liability is traffic offences.
Firstly whites are clearly not the least criminal ethnic group. Black people at 4% of the overall population are 12% of the prison population Alarmingly among under 18s, they are 30% of the prison population. There are several times more Muslims in prison than there are people of all other minority religions combined.
When you actually think about the diversity of the black and Muslim population you might argue lumping them all together is unwise. But it does suggest trouble within SOME black and SOME Muslim communities.
One probably should control for age and sex. I.e., young men and disproportionately criminal. If most of the people of type [x] are young men, then that could skew numbers quite a lot.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
Though presumably if someone could reasonably demonstrate that they had not done anything untoward and it reached the court they could request a jury trial and the jury could in theory apply common sense and acquit them?
A problem with that is that it is illegal to show the image to a jury. They are just told that an expert has deemed it to be a category 1 or 5 etc image.
That is one of those times where I would be very happy to let someone else do the work and just give me their opinion...
After all I wouldn't be able to work out what category is should be in anyway..
Fair comment when it is a case of which category.
More problematic when it is a case of is it or isn't it any category at all.
There was a well known female TV presenter who got into trouble over infants in the bath photos a good few years ago.
It eventually resolved but not without months of extreme stress.
Don't particularly want to google to find out more details for obvious reasons.
More common is an incident at school between two pupils where knacker is called in, phones get searched then those they have whatsapped get dragged in. The whole thing can turn into a bit of a pogrom unless common sense is used.
Often they will caution to make it go away with the cautioned person and their parents not realising that means they are now a PAEDO for life with career chances etc ruined.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
What other strict liability offences are there? Is there no permissible defence or mitigation? Might this be construed as a touch oppressive?
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
Have we had what is a Tram and what is a Train yet? :-)
A sort of railway Filioque
We can't possibly have that one in the absence of @Sunil_Prasannan
Firstly whites are clearly not the least criminal ethnic group. Black people at 4% of the overall population are 12% of the prison population Alarmingly among under 18s, they are 30% of the prison population. There are several times more Muslims in prison than there are people of all other minority religions combined.
When you actually think about the diversity of the black and Muslim population you might argue lumping them all together is unwise. But it does suggest trouble within SOME black and SOME Muslim communities.
One probably should control for age and sex. I.e., young men and disproportionately criminal. If most of the people of type [x] are young men, then that could skew numbers quite a lot.
… and poverty, or index of multiple deprivation.
Not sure on that one.
Some people want to deliberately import people on unskilled low wages, precisely because they don't want to pay a higher wage or see costs go up.
If that's happening as a matter of policy, I'm not sure it should be controlled for in analysis. It's right perhaps to say this is a problem and paying higher wages rather than importing people to work on minimum wage may be required.
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
Which of course is why each local authority sets its own tax rates for the bands. Anything done with a national scale of current house prices will make most of SE England totally unaffordable for those who currently live there. Even worse, it gives government a vested interest in keeping house prices as high as posible, as we see with stamp duty at the moment.
Not really - it sets a value for Band D and the other bands are based on percentages of that Band D valuation
If we have a national banding scheme what we will have is councils up north with a Band D valuation of £4000 (because their houses are now in bands A-C) while down south its £2000 because all the houses are in Band E and above.
Ideally we skip all that and just go £x of the current market value because that information is at hand thanks to the reporting of purchase price..
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
What other strict liability offences are there? Is there no permissible defence or mitigation? Might this be construed as a touch oppressive?
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
Which of course is why each local authority sets its own tax rates for the bands. Anything done with a national scale of current house prices will make most of SE England totally unaffordable for those who currently live there. Even worse, it gives government a vested interest in keeping house prices as high as posible, as we see with stamp duty at the moment.
Not really - it sets a value for Band D and the other bands are based on percentages of that Band D valuation
If we have a national banding scheme what we will have is councils up north with a Band D valuation of £4000 (because their houses are now in bands A-C) while down south its £2000 because all the houses are in Band E and above.
Ideally we skip all that and just go £x of the current market value because that information is at hand thanks to the reporting of purchase price..
But the Band D property in London looks very different to a Band D property in Yorkshire. The comparison shouldn’t be between properties in the same band, but between properties of the same size. The average 2-bed flat, or 4-bed house, would likely pay similar council tax in both places.
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
Have we had what is a Tram and what is a Train yet? :-)
A sort of railway Filioque
When I see that question I always refer people to Gareth Dennis's Not a Metro sorter
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
You're a free market guy, right? If people prioritise having a nice home over foreign holidays, then that's the way it is.
What I would say is, the Bank of England failed us massively by not hiking rates in the late 90s and 2000s as prices took off. And they failed us again by leaving them at 0 for over a decade post the GFC.
I've got nothing against people choosing a nice home, if that's their choice.
The problem is that its not nice homes that have become more expensive or demanded, its all homes, because supply has failed to keep up with demand. Because we do not have a free market.
I support a free market yes. Anyone who wants to build a home should have the liberty to do so, without asking for permission from anyone else. That will solve the problem.
What we have today is not a free market. When curtain twitching nobodies can object to houses being constructed on land they don't own and has nothing to do with them, it is not a free market.
Based on your comments yesterday, I've revised my hypothetical:
If the Donald Trump of Warrington came along and bought the house next to yours and starting constructing a four-storey apartment building covering the entire plot, thinking that this would make the surrounding houses worthless so he could buy them up to complete his scheme, would you be right behind him?
How much clearer can I be?
Its his land. Whatever he wants to do on his plot is up to him.
If prices come down, then that makes housing more affordable, you're saying that like its a bad thing.
Not prices in aggregate coming down, but your own house becoming unsellable.
So what? Free market.
Just cut the price if competition is driving the cost of yours down, same as any other sector. Competition lowering prices is a good thing, not a bad one.
I fear you're missing the point. I'm not talkiing about competition lowering the value of your house as part of a fall in overall prices, but someone deliberately making your house unsellable in order to acquire it for a song.
So, for example, someone might make their home into a halfway house for young offenders?
I once trolled a local facebook group who were in Full Nimby Froth mode about a plan for an old peoples home on a disused allotment; telling them that due to the objections the scheme had been cancelled and a hostel for newly released sex offenders would be built instead (said disused allotment was next to the Scout Hut).
It was epic.
A colleg said that I shouldn't be allowed on social media (when he finally stopped laughing).
My best troll was selling an MP on the idea of growing peanuts in Africa to use for making biofuel.
Wasn’t that the wheeze that the UK govenment lost £billions on in the 50s?
Hence the troll. I was a bit drunk at a function - realised the MP I was talking to was very susceptible to a sales pitch.
So I sold him Ground Nuts….
Another good one was getting some lawyers to consider a rehash of the Nuremberg Law definition of race.
This Northerner welcomes more houses in the North.
And as we discussed last night, house prices in Redcar are extremely expensive and unaffordable. That average price is over 5x the median income of £32k.
A 3x income to price ratio would mean that prices in Redcar should be circa £96k not £164k. A 2x income to price ratio, which would be even better and what it was when some on this site bought their first home, would make prices £64k.
Cutting London's target is wrong. Increasing targets in Redcar or anywhere else* in the North is not.
* According to the ONS the only place in the entire country with a sub-3x affordability ratio is Copeland. Though even in Copeland its only just affordable at 2.9x . . . the rest of the country, even the more relatively 'affordable' bits like Redcar are 5x plus.
Houses in Redcar are not expensive at all relative to London. Indeed a couple both earning average wage in Redcar would find the average house price there was less than 3 times their combined salary.
The average house price in London though is over 6 times the combined salary of even a couple each earning average London salary
"Relative to London" is irrelevant.
Houses in Redcar are very expensive relative to Redcar.
Check the ONS chart. House price to income ratio in Redcar has reached a record high of unaffordability, for Redcar.
3x a couple's combined salary is extremely expensive and not what we should be aiming for, 3x median salary is the ratio houses used to be and what we should get house price ratios back down to. Anywhere higher than 3x median salary needs massively more construction until houses are affordable once more.
Everyone working full time should be able to afford a house of their own.
3x combined salary is what we should be aiming for while most couples both work.
If mothers (or indeed a few more fathers) mainly stayed at home with the children and did the housework and cooked dinner and dropped the kids off at school 1950s style while their spouse or partner went to work then 3x individual median salary as was normal in the 1950s is what we should be aiming for but that is not the situation now and that also inflates house prices
No, 3x median salary is what we should be aiming for.
If both members of a couple are working then the second income ought to be able to go on affording improving quality of life, luxuries like holidays etc, not just inflate the cost of houses.
No it is not, for starters as it is unachievable as long as more women are in the workplace and not housewives. It was only achievable decades ago as only the husband tended to be the wage earner, now you have both partners and spouses in a couple working and that also pushes up salaries.
If both members of a couple are working then obviously they mainly use that extra income to buy a bigger house but in reality all it does is add further pressure on house prices.
If they want to improve quality of life or have a bit extra for luxuries the wife (or indeed husband if they are the preferred stay at home partner) can just get a local part time job and spend the rest of the time looking after the home and children. They don't both need full time paid jobs
It doesn't add pressure on houses, unless there is a limit of housing supply.
With unlimited housing supply, then houses will reach an equilibrium and become more affordable.
Yes people want homes. They also want TVs and other things. TV prices have come down, not up, because competition has driven them down.
Eliminate restrictions on housing and competition can do the same for housing and second salaries can be used to improve quality of life, not just make up for inflation.
The biggest reason that prices of TVs keep dropping is advancements in technology.
So we also need to look at new construction methods, offsite assembly, modular housing, even container-based housing, anything that makes building houses cheaper and can quickly increase supply.
The whole area needs to be “Yes and” though, so this is in addition to everything else.
The main cost of a house is the land on which it sits, otherwise house prices would be roughly the same all over the country.
The biggest disaster is the 1948 Town Planning Act (and successors).
Prior to 1948 the price of land was 2-3% of the price of a house.
Today the price of land is typically one third or more of house prices.
While land gaining consent today adds 0's to the value of that land.
Abolish planning, revert back to a pre-1948 situation, give everyone permission automatically on all land (outside AONBs) and 0s would be knocked back off the price of land with permission as it equalises the value of land. Get back to land being 2-3% of the price of the house and house prices would come down accordingly.
You ignored my question about whether or not achieving your desired outcome would make the country more attractive as a destination for immigration. It seems obvious that the answer is that it would, in which case you need to explain what level you expect the population to reach before all the non-AONBs are built on.
Yes I think it would.
So what? That's a good thing is it not?
Making the country a shit, expensive place to live where people can't afford homes isn't the way to deal with migration.
We should welcome making the country a great, affordable place to live.
So what level do you think the population can reasonably reach?
Well its not going to happen, but in extremis if say England had the same population density of Hong Kong we would have a population of 820 million people.
Now since that's well over 10% of the planets population, that's clearly not going to happen.
Getting back to reality, currently about 5% of our land goes on housing (including open spaces, gardens, parks etc not just the bricks and mortar). We have plenty of space, even if we made that 6, 7 or 8% of land it would barely make a dent in our "green and pleasant land".
But you also want to increase housing density, so let's be conservative and say we end up with 8% of land built on at a 20% higher density. That would mean doubling the population. Do you really think that would have no other knock on effects on the environment beyond the additional land that was built on?
No it wouldn't mean doubling population, since if we increase the supply of housing and demand scales upwards, then housing pressure would not be alleviated at all.
I want to see the supply of housing increased such that supply exceeds demand, so prices fall, and nobody is forced to live in a run down home as there are better/cheaper options available to choose from instead.
A minimum of 10% of properties should at any one time be vacant, both to have a natural churn as people move, and to ensure the worst homes aren't moved into and instead are sold (at rock bottom prices) only to those who desire to refurbish them.
Supply needs to grow more than demand. So laying all supply growth down with a commensurate demand growth is a fallacy.
It's close enough. If you double the amount of housing with 10% vacant then you have the best part of double the population.
A minimum of 10% vacant, not a maximum.
And I've not advocated doubling housing, I've consistently advocated 10 million new homes for starters (which would bring us roughly in parity with the number of homes France has, for the same population as us).
Once we get closer to that, would reassess.
Plus as Sandpit says, alleviating our housing shortage would enable people in overcrowded homes to move into a home of their own. Everyone who wants one should be able to get a home of their own.
Or people could with sufficient construction have second homes. Which there's nothing wrong with, if there's no shortage for people's first homes.
So if Edwards asked for no underage images why is he the one who is guilty? Is it because he possessed the images and the law doesn't take into account whether someone intended to possess pics of underage children?
Because they were on his device. End of.
When the thing is sent to his device a copy of the file is made in his devices memory. In law that is deemed making such an image because he is the "driver" of the device
That is the way the law works.
Read, take note and understand. Especially if you are a parent and have to deal with/advise teenagers.
This is also means, for example, that if you automatically back up photos to a home server, and your teenager were to take a revealing selfie of themselves (which was never sent to anyone, and which you had no knowledge of), you would also be guilty of an offence.
Interesting. We back up to a home server (using syncthing) from the mobiles and, given we have young kids, there are pictures on there - no doubt - of them in a state of undress (bath time, probably some in the paddling pool although they're normally clothed). Am I guilty?
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
My law A-Level, admittedly some time ago, suggested crimes needed Mens Rea. I assume this in not the case anymore?
It's a "strict liability" offence, and therefore that does not apply.
What other strict liability offences are there? Is there no permissible defence or mitigation? Might this be construed as a touch oppressive?
The big area for strict liability is traffic offences.
Wait, so if I have naked baby pics of myself and brother saves on my phone I could be arrested?! Who wrote such a law?
The new government will never have more goodwill than they do now, a month into a large majority.
Yet they’ve actually been very timid with the annoucements, and made some basic errors such as cancelling infrastructure projects to pay for current spending, especially their old friends in the public sector unions.
The 22% raise for those who already earn well above average wage comes across as particularly egregious, and will no doubt inspire other unions to ask for the same. A 22% offer that’s been described as derisory by the union involved, the leader of which does his best to come across as Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope.
It's a curious set of infrastructure projects that have been cancelled because most of them were pie in sky crap (the restoring your railway ones) or could be argued to be ongoing expenditure (is it really investment if you are replacing an existing hospital)...
You then have the very contentious A303 Stonehenge tunnel and an A27 scheme which the locals seem to actively hate...
So I see a couple of political point scoring victories (A303,A27) hidden in the cost cutting there, a pile of populist crap (the restoring railways "projects") and a question over what is investment..
I don’t know about the A27, but the A303 has been top of the agenda for at least three decades now, and the HS2 link to Euston leaves a white elephant of a line that no-one actually going to London is going to use except with promotional fares, and adds more human congestion to the reduced number of trains on the legacy main lines. The Thames crossing has already spend a quarter of a billion on paperwork, and don’t start me on Heathrow’s third runway.
All of these should have been done a long, long time ago, and it’s disappointing to see a new government kick the can just as the last one did. And the one before that.
Heathrow's third runway isn't a money issue - that would be paid for by Heathrow.
As for HS2 - my opinion is that once it was designed it should have been built as is - but Euston should be being advertised as the 2/3 different projects it is so that people know where the money is going...
I'm less concerned about delaying the final part to Euston (a) because I think they will do it eventually and (b) it doesn't invalidate the rest of the line.
Much play is made that people don't want to journey to Old Oak Common. But they mostly don't want to go to Euston either. Almost everyone wants to go to a station in London and from there take local transport to their final destination. Old Oak Common fulfills that role as does Euston. A third of passengers would choose to get off at Old Oak Common anyway, it's marginal for many of the rest and almost everyone will make the trip to Old Oak Common if that's where the station is. The main effect is to overload the Elizabeth Line.
I'm a lot more concerned about the section to Crewe. If you don't put the capacity in to a similar specification as the southern part, it undermines the whole project.
edit - you already made both my points further down..
Isn't the Birmingham to Crewe bit the most economically viable part of the entire project?
After that I thought it was the HSb (Eastern Leg) and then the bit to Manchester?
Mm - define 'economically viable'.
Birmingham to Crewe is certainly the least costly. But I'd say 'economically viable' would be your balance of costs and benefits. So: a) what benefits does the economic case of the business case say it delivers? b) does it deliver those if the other sections are not delivered? c) what about the other non-quantified benefits (which are in all likelihood greater than those which have been quantified) - e.g. regeneration benefits, e.g. capacity relief, e.g. sections which deliver parts of other proposed investments?
Answer: it's complicated!
Its not that complicated.
If they don't build phase 2a to Crewe, six tracks (four Trent Valley and Two HS2) will converge on un grade separated Colwich Junction and two track Shugborough Tunnel.
It's a total clusterfuck. That is such a pinchpoint that an upgrade to bypass it all was already planned before being canned when HS2 came along.
Er, the Stone avoiding line diverges *before* Shugborough Tunnel. So it's four lines, not two, that operate there.
It would still be a pinch point but not quite as bad a one as you think.
Colwich is where the line to stoke on trent goes of and the WCML goes down to 2 track north of it through Shugborough Tunnel.
All it carries is two of the Euston to Manchesters per hour (down trains thereof also conflict with up trains from Stafford at Colwich).
If the "stone avoiding line" had a route back to the West Coast Main Line north of Stafford, you might have a point, but it dosent south of Crewe. Although the Stoke to Crewe Line being electrified in the last few years helps.
It carries far more than 2tph at peak periods. More like 8 (or four each way).
Also, if there were no crossover at Stone it couldn't carry trains to Stoke.
I agree it would be better if it were grade separated, but your earlier claim of 'six tracks going down to two tracks' was simply daft.
Eh?
You can't go Colwich - Stone Avoiding line - back to WCML (before Crewe and slowly at any rate)
It is basically a branch.
The WCML is four track, then two HS2 tracks will join it a few miles before it becomes 2 track through Shugborough Tunnel.
As to 4TPH in the peak service, to Stoke avoiding Stafford is still 2PH (3 tph from Manchester to Euton, but one goes via Wilmslow and Crewe).
There is an extra Manchester to Euston via Stoke in the morning peak, but that goes via Stafford and Birmingham, same as all the Crosscountries (as did the London Midland Euston to Crewe via Stafford and Stoke before they decided to bypass Stoke and send it fast from Stafford to Crewe).
Rail planning is one of those areas in which it is quite astonishing how many really quite knowledgeable people there are on here.
Although they don't include that particular poster, who not only doesn't know the track layout but describes a line as 'basically a branch' before noting it takes fast services...
Yeah, what the fuck would I know after a lifetime spent in the industry.
Suggest you look up some easy to access publically available resources like then one below before talking out of the back of your head.
Or I could do what I do fairly frequently, living only a few miles away, and go and look at the track...
Given your very strange pronouncements on the MML and HS2 I'm inclined to say the answer to your first question is 'not a lot,' if I'm honest.
Looking at the track from the ground isn't particularly helpful in understanding how a complex layout like Colwich works, nor the usefulness and traffic density of the various routes from it.
A look at Whitehouse Junction (where the two tracks through Shugborough Tunnel widen back to four) and Hixon (on what you call the Stone Avoiding Line (actually it is no such thing - it passes through Stone Station on seaparate tracks where the platforms were demolished in the '60s)) on real time trains will show you that all bar a very small number of the large number of passenger and freight trains passing through Colwich Junction run through the two track bottleneck that is Shugborough Tunnel.
The site will show you that of the 27 trains that run south from or two Colwich Junction, passing either Whitehouse Jct or Hixon between 9 AM and 10 AM:
* 23 pass through Shugborough Tunnel and Whitehouse Junction between 9AM and 10AM.
* Just 4 pass through Hixon on your so called Stone avoiding Line between 9AM and 10AM .
Shall we run through how this conversation started?
You complained that with HS2 coming into the WCML at Lichfield (actually Handsacre) there would be a major bottleneck where 'six tracks go into two' at Shugborough.
I pointed out that there is a double track line from Colwich to Stone so this statement was incorrect.
You then said that didn't count as it only had two trains per hour on it.
I pointed out this was also not correct as there were more than this (up to four each way) at peak times (and I was using RealTimeTrains for data - feel free to expand it to the whole day) which you rather grudgingly accepted although you now seem to have rowed back on that.
You then said it only took a couple of expresses per hour and was, in effect, a branch line, which I pointed out was a logical contradiction.
You then got very agitated but never actually managed to explain why that wasn't a contradiction.
On your substantive point, nobody disputes the junctions are badly laid out, causing restrictions on traffic, and need sorting if the line's to be used properly. That's been a constant thing since it was electrified (arguably before). Grade separated junctions easily accessed for traffic going both ways would be needed and are not as simple as waving a wand. And that also applies wherever the DfT run HS2 to.
But the line *is* there and therefore your claim that six tracks go into two was mathematically and factually incorrect. It's your stubborn refusal to accept this that's getting you into the tangle you seem to be in.
Whether six tracks going into four is much better is another question. I'd say not, but then, I've always advocated building HS2 right the way to Manchester and Leeds. If the government are too cheeseparing to do that then at least up to Crewe would be far better than Handsacre.
To give my qualifications, I am a lifelong rail enthusiast and used to drive steam trains on a heritage railway.
Having a couple of expresses per hour on a branch line is not in any way a logical contradiction. By describing it as such you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.
A branch line is any line that is connected to a main line and has its own services. It is engineered for lower speeds than a main line. There may also be other restrictions that you wouldn't find on a main line, e.g. weight and loading gauge.
An express is any train that goes from its origin to its destination with few or no stops.
So if a line coming off the main line at A runs to point B with 10 intermediate stops and is engineered for top speeds of, say, 50mph, it is a branch line. If there is a train originating at A and running to B without stopping at the intermediate stops, it is an express. Indeed, an express train from London to B would run along the branch line. It doesn't stop the express being an express, nor does it stop the branch line being a branch line.
I love your suggestion that going and looking at the track means you know what you are talking about. I've looked at a hospital. That doesn't make me a medical expert.
If you were talking to a group of rail enthusiasts with the posts you have made here, you would be quietly advised to stop making a fool of yourself.
I appear to have a similar background to you (except on track, rather than driving...), and I'm actually more on @ydoethur 's side on this. For instance, I don't think the linespeed on Stone to Colwich is 50 MPH? I'm pretty sure it can't really be classed as a branch line; more of a subsidiary/secondary main line.
I wouldn't criticse secondary main or subsidiary route (although the whole thing is quite grey as illustrated by Norton Bridge to Stone, Guildford via Cobham and Coastway East and West from Brighton in my post above).
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
I have no real idea what you guys are debating, but I do have respect for the way the discussion has continued over multiple days, on multiple threads in a civilised manner and with (apparently) substantive arguments
Have we had what is a Tram and what is a Train yet? :-)
A sort of railway Filioque
We can't possibly have that one in the absence of @Sunil_Prasannan
He would never, ever forgive us.
I don't want to spend the rest of the week on here all day either
Housing - Lower is better (Average completions per year for the prior 10 years/ population) - for reference sub 192 would enable Labour to hit their 1.5 M housebuilding target:
Worst authorities *lim ->∞ Isles of Scilly 1954 Brighton and Hove 1630 Kingston upon Thames 1578 Richmond upon Thames 1441 Eastbourne 1358 Adur 1251 Leicester 1221 Norwich 1169 Southend-on-Sea 1136 Birmingham
Best/Qualifying areas.
190 Tower Hamlets 189 Wychavon 188 Wokingham 185 East Devon 184 West Oxfordshire 182 South Cambridgeshire 182 Central Bedfordshire 179 Maidstone 177 Mid Suffolk 173 South Norfolk 171 Telford and Wrekin 165 Milton Keynes 163 Cherwell 162 North West Leicestershire 160 Dartford 155 Ribble Valley 155 Tewkesbury 153 Vale of White Horse 149 Harborough 132 Stratford-on-Avon 126 South Derbyshire
Out of interest where is Durham. There does seem to be quite a bit of housebuilding round here.
Your first problem with Durham is exactly what is your definition of Durham - because the City itself will have different figures to the villages around it..
In this case it is the Local Authority area.
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
I suspect the data is available but it will be on the VOA website (based on date council tax started - so difficult to access and technically for personal use only.
Especially as it is more for my personal interest. Anecdotally I know of several new builds completed recently or ongoing but that is only a part of the picture.
oh it's useful data to have but it's a right faff to collect.
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
Which of course is why each local authority sets its own tax rates for the bands. Anything done with a national scale of current house prices will make most of SE England totally unaffordable for those who currently live there. Even worse, it gives government a vested interest in keeping house prices as high as posible, as we see with stamp duty at the moment.
Not really - it sets a value for Band D and the other bands are based on percentages of that Band D valuation
If we have a national banding scheme what we will have is councils up north with a Band D valuation of £4000 (because their houses are now in bands A-C) while down south its £2000 because all the houses are in Band E and above.
Ideally we skip all that and just go £x of the current market value because that information is at hand thanks to the reporting of purchase price..
But the Band D property in London looks very different to a Band D property in Yorkshire. The comparison shouldn’t be between properties in the same band, but between properties of the same size. The average 2-bed flat, or 4-bed house, would likely pay similar council tax in both places.
Oh the end result is that they may be paying the same amount but it's going to look absolutely horrendous - and it's going to have a whole set of unintended consequences.
so the best approach really would be x% of the current market value, something that wasn't possible in 1990 but is incredibly easy to do nowadays.
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year - shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year - robbery up 8% year-on-year - computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
8 arrests after the Machete incident in Southend. Looks like this sort of thing happened last year too.
Roadman, innit.
"Essex Police said a Section 60 dispersal order would remain in place in Southend-on-Sea until 20:00 BST on Wednesday after the disorder on Tuesday night.
The force said seven weapons were also seized, and a video shared on social media appeared to show at least four people dressed in black brandishing large knives near the resort's Adventure Island theme park.
The local MP Bayo Alaba said there was "a pattern now" of people posting on social media about planned meet-ups on the beach, which needed to be "looked at differently"."
Comments
Container-based housing is awful. They are prone to damp and too small.
Completions in prior 5 years: 7650
Population est: 539,669 (0.31% / 0.28% / yr - very slightly above average, not near the 0.52% needed to hit Labour's target)
If everyone had permission to do whatever they wanted, so long as it was safe and legal, then if someone wanted to build a container based house or any other innovation they could, so long as it met building codes.
*checks library of over 200 railway books, including two about the politics of railway management I wrote myself*
Obviously I’m not a lifelong enthusiast.
*Checks itinerary including all those trips on the WCML north from Rugeley and lots of trainspotting at Colwich*
Obviously I never see the tracks, or know what I’m looking at.
Mr Bedfordshire is right that there are capacity issues but being very stubborn in refusing to admit to what was, ultimately, a minor if amusing mistake. Not sure why.
1090 completions (2018 - 23)
Population est: 134,576
Here's Bassetlaw:
3570 starts (Including 1,060 in 2022/23) !
3150 completions (2018 - 23)
Pop est: 121,951
Another gold.
What a great race.
I seem to remember there was a case where someone tried to run that defence. Was having some success, until prosecution pointed out he’d saved the questionable images/videos to a secured application on his phone.
However, I could be massively wrong.
Not all 2024 local authorities had a match, so this could be tidied up considerably.
What surprises me is that there doesn't seem to be any kind of pattern.
Boundaries from https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/fb6ab0ce776243339e45e33444f431c8_0/explore?location=54.967896,-3.316942,7.16
I would prefer to know for Chester-Le-Street/North Durham area. I am not sure that level of detail is available.
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police."
Downside is you’re further away, but given a lot of trains (freight especially) pass the platforms at Rugeley at rather high speeds that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
https://www.vistrygroup.co.uk/media-centre/press-releases/vistry-manufacturing-md-speaks-out-property-week-about-barriers-mmc
The Aliens Act 1905 stopped that last one nine years before 1914.
It was primarily aimed at Jewish emigrants fleeing Russia in the aftermath of the Tsar’s pogroms and the chaos of the 1905 revolution.
However the context was that the line dosent provide material relief through the two track Shugborough Tunnel stretch and only 4 out of 27 trains both ways through colwich go via Hixon ( 2 an hour each way even in peaks not 4 each way as he claimed).
So my actual words "basically a branch" are fair comment in the context and he is just engaging in using a debatable minor detail to claim my comment (that post HS2, six tracks worth of traffic will be funnelled into two track Shugborough Tunnel) is wrong.
Some LAs have changed - for instance
E07000150 Corby INACTIVE (Local Authority)
E07000152 East Northamptonshire INACTIVE (Local Authority)
E07000153 Kettering INACTIVE (Local Authority)
E07000156 Wellingborough INACTIVE (Local Authority)
is now E06000061 North Northamptonshire
Implementing the planning process at a local level is proving problematic ... difficult to build standard form houses across the UK on a consistent basis. Complex planning requirements and the lengthy timeframes involved as well as the disparity between different local authorities
I wonder if stripping local authorities of planning responsibility and having a national set consistent building standards, where people could build what they want, where they want, if its done within acceptable standards, would help address any of those concerns?
The UK has chosen the former and the latter is doomed.
Which makes sense: the lower the population density, the easier to find land for housing.
There's possibly also a secondary bit of calculus about where densities are high but land values are REALLY high you can overcome this.
I don't see what could be plainer or more prosaic. And we now have PBers tying themselves in ridiculous knots suggesting that Truss should have demanded to make a speech, or that Truss has decided to tell a provable lie on a podcast, on this of all issues, when throughout her entire career she has been disarmingly (and sometimes foolishly) frank. Certain PBers need to reflect on the abuse they dish out to this woman, and whether it is at all proportionate or warranted, rather than these ridiculous contortions.
And of course even 0-200 is insufficient construction. We should be looking more towards ~0-40 pop/completion as ideal.
"Claire Fox
@Fox_Claire
To be totally clear, I did not say this was an issue in Southport barbarism. Indeed, as I explained to
@Iromg, rush to opportunistically link that tragedy to a local mosque was gruesome/wrong-headed. As were riots. However, we need to understand & discuss openly reasons why there's a general sense of public frustration, fury & fear about a sense of lawlessness and double-standards @TalkTV"
https://x.com/Fox_Claire/status/1818558283851936091
What there is, nationwide, is a convention that losing incumbents can make a speech if they choose to do so.
Its not the returning officers job to determine whether she makes a speech or not, she can say she wants to - if the returning officer then says no, she'd have a point, but she did not.
Here we go - anecdote to match the data:
https://twitter.com/adurandworthing/status/1499399663526440966
https://twitter.com/adurandworthing/status/1499399663526440966
It seems to me that the outcome is very much down to individual local authorities.
If that is the case you can see why the government is wanting to set targets but I wonder what the actual penalty will be for not meeting them?
The image remains in the "spare memory" until written over.
With magnetic hard disk drives they can even use clever software to recover the image *after* it has been written over.
Leaving illegal images aside, this is also a major security risk if selling on a phone due to private (eg. financial) data on it and why a lot of corporations destroy old devices rather than sell them).
That Claire Fox?
She's a total piece of shit, and her ennobling was an utter disgrace.
Obviously if they could just buy a ticket to St Pancras, the numbers would be rather higher.
@alexwickham
Some pretty shocking crime stats from the ONS:
- 40% increase in theft from the person year-on-year
- shoplifting at its highest level in 20 years, up 30% year-on-year
- robbery up 8% year-on-year
- computer misuse up 37%, 42% increase in stealing personal information"
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1816057825744851238
A sort of railway Filioque
But, presumably just as guilty for taking said images in the first place and making them on to the phone. Or is there some common sense exceptions in law for parents' pics of their own little kids?
@Miss_Snuffy
The Left says of Southport: bunch of racist Far Right idiots. The ordinary ppl of Southport say enough of the lies. Southport is an example of multiculturalism failing. But it doesn’t have to fail. I try here in 10 mins @arc_forum to explain why/how.
http://youtu.be/Mn_OohfGTYk?si…"
https://x.com/Miss_Snuffy/status/1818394837927796787
If you were involved in the riots last night and got your phone confiscated then don't expect common sense to be used.
There are more subtle ways to crush dissidents than throwing them out of the window of a high rise like the FSB (KGB) do.
And even if they don't bring charges, they take about a year to decide and you might be banned from home because social services deem you a risk to your own kids. The process can be the punishment.
My understanding is there is no convention but up to local "custom". It may be where a seat doesn't usually change hands, it's just easier to let the winning candidate do all the thank yous so everyone can go home to their beds (or someone else's, I don't judge).
I think Neil Hamilton spoke after Martin Ball won Tatton also in 1997 so maybe it was different then.
I can understand the protocol to allow a defeated MP to say their farewells but by 5.30am I suspect hearing from a defeated MP isn't at the top of anyone's list of priorities.
Still all to play for for both sides, no matter the desperate spinning from European and American liberal commentariat.
[Declaring my interest - I have a $5 bet with a friend in Seattle that Trump would beat Biden. Not sure what we'll do now that Harris is running instead].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_399#Design
In addition, for compatibility with running upon the National Rail network, the tram-trains are fitted with Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS) and GSM-R equipment.
If yes, then it's a train.
So the best thing to do is to read them the riot act when they appear and treat them to the appropriate sentences for not dispersing when asked.
Truss seems fair game.
She was a useless PM but some of the hatred/commentary thrown at her seems a little off. The same people are the ones (mainly posh boys) who think Angela Rayner is ace and a victim of anti working class prejudice.
After all I wouldn't be able to work out what category is should be in anyway..
There were at earlier times rules that restricted immigration, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts#Navigation_Act_1660
Mind you I should get back off my arse and slurp the data because I was planning to use it to match council tax band to last sale prices as I suspect that would reveal the scale of the mess the Government will have revaluing council tax houses and bands..
After all if they use an England wide set of bands - every house in London is going to be band F and above, most houses around here will be band A.
For instance most of the "stunning" Knights View development might not show up in the Bassetlaw 2022/23 starts.
I don't think the govt would ever have the courage to revalue council tax bands. They should. But they won't.
Housing tax should be a percentage of land value. If land value goes down then, your taxes go down, and vice-versa. No reason to encourage artificially high land values then.
More problematic when it is a case of is it or isn't it any category at all.
There was a well known female TV presenter who got into trouble over infants in the bath photos a good few years ago.
It eventually resolved but not without months of extreme stress.
Don't particularly want to google to find out more details for obvious reasons.
More common is an incident at school between two pupils where knacker is called in, phones get searched then those they have whatsapped get dragged in. The whole thing can turn into a bit of a pogrom unless common sense is used.
Often they will caution to make it go away with the cautioned person and their parents not realising that means they are now a PAEDO for life with career chances etc ruined.
He would never, ever forgive us.
Some people want to deliberately import people on unskilled low wages, precisely because they don't want to pay a higher wage or see costs go up.
If that's happening as a matter of policy, I'm not sure it should be controlled for in analysis. It's right perhaps to say this is a problem and paying higher wages rather than importing people to work on minimum wage may be required.
If we have a national banding scheme what we will have is councils up north with a Band D valuation of £4000 (because their houses are now in bands A-C) while down south its £2000 because all the houses are in Band E and above.
Ideally we skip all that and just go £x of the current market value because that information is at hand thanks to the reporting of purchase price..
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Strict-liability.php including motoring offences, health and safety violations, possession of illegal objects and substances, and age of consent.
And yes, it’s just a touch oppressive.
https://x.com/GarethDennis/status/1534621173027323904
So I sold him Ground Nuts….
Another good one was getting some lawyers to consider a rehash of the Nuremberg Law definition of race.
so the best approach really would be x% of the current market value, something that wasn't possible in 1990 but is incredibly easy to do nowadays.
Roadman, innit.
"Essex Police said a Section 60 dispersal order would remain in place in Southend-on-Sea until 20:00 BST on Wednesday after the disorder on Tuesday night.
The force said seven weapons were also seized, and a video shared on social media appeared to show at least four people dressed in black brandishing large knives near the resort's Adventure Island theme park.
The local MP Bayo Alaba said there was "a pattern now" of people posting on social media about planned meet-ups on the beach, which needed to be "looked at differently"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce4q8eepj8po