Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
Personally, I think a hot war might be the biggest factor in dramatically changing our relationship with the EU, either in or out.
If and when Putin does something too brazen with European states, we'll all either have to band together, or fall apart. The latter being by far the worst option.
I’m sure when VVP does something like that the masses ranks of the PB Armchair Brigade will be along pivoting their expertise onto this subject.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
That would mean some English pensioners being allowed to retire into them. Absolutely not - I want to see a geographical link to the area going back 1000+ years.
So before those snooty Normans came over and tool all the jobs (and the land)
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
It will be a nightmare. This is perfectly obvious
For every “student that @Dura_Ace taught in Brussels” (lol, really??) there will be entire nations that want a pound of flesh, half our fishing, the crushing of the City, massive payments of Danegeld, on and on - because every country has a veto on further members and Britain is a big bad problematic country in so many ways. Some might just veto us outright
It will be a nightmare. Just as Brexit was a nightmare - tho at least in that instance they could not stop us leaving, in the end. In this instance they can literally say Nah - it just takes one country
Inability to see this is pitiful
It will doubtless be a torrid process. That much is eminently foreseeable but the outcome isn't. Of course people will (as you are doing here) shape their view of how it is 'bound to' play out according to their Leave/Remain leanings.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
Well, exactly.
Remainers said it was silly to call a referendum and to vote out and to invoke article 50 with no idea of the end state. But the EU would do no negotiating before article 50.
Do you think the EU would let us do the negotiations before a referendum on rejoining? I doubt it. So the same arguments should apply...
Personally, I think a hot war might be the biggest factor in dramatically changing our relationship with the EU, either in or out.
If and when Putin does something too brazen with European states, we'll all either have to band together, or fall apart. The latter being by far the worst option.
I’m sure when VVP does something like that the masses ranks of the PB Armchair Brigade will be along pivoting their expertise onto this subject.
The Ultras do seem to have lost interest in the SMO (no discussion at all of the Cardboard Revolution) and moved on to some imaginary, and perhaps yearned for, Russian invasion of Latvia.
Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes will stand down at next year's Holyrood election.
The Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch MSP said she did not want to "seek re-election and miss any more of the precious early years of family life".
I think she’s making the right decision. Even with Holyrood’s more family friendly policies compared to Westminster, being a politician is still not compatible with family life, unfortunately. It is still more suited to middle aged men, singles (maybe why there are so many gay politicians) and the recently retired.
She probably doesn’t see herself becoming SNP leader above Stephen Flynn.
The Lib Dems will now be sniffing hard at the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch seat, particularly after their local election successes.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
I'd say that the UK was due a recession, likely short and shallow, about 2001 on the economic cycle and that Gordon Brown was willing to pump a housing, consumer and public spending bubble to postpone it.
Firstly so that Labour could be re-elected in 2001, then for the aftermath of 9/11 and then Iraq, followed by the need of Labour being re-elected in 2005 and then finally - perhaps most importantly for Brown - for Brown to become PM in 2007.
The UK became Mr Creosote in economic terms - when the bubble burst the effects were horrible.
Personally, I think a hot war might be the biggest factor in dramatically changing our relationship with the EU, either in or out.
If and when Putin does something too brazen with European states, we'll all either have to band together, or fall apart. The latter being by far the worst option.
I’m sure when VVP does something like that the masses ranks of the PB Armchair Brigade will be along pivoting their expertise onto this subject.
Goodness, not this rubbish again.
Well you cannot have a monopoly on rubbish, old chap.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
We do know that our representatives are not good at negotiating outcomes advantageous to us.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
Mortgage offers falling out of your cornflakes packet, changing the inflation indicator and spending on an unprecedented level, plus so much more can all be laid at the feet of Gordo.
That meant when we hit the GFC we are pretty badly prepared, verging on negligently so.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
That's because you are a Tory.
Both were poor Prime Ministers, Cameron because of his hubris and Brown because of his angry demeanor (although I suspect history will be more sympathetic to Brown's role in dealing with the US derived financial crash- one which despite what Tories on here believe, he didn't create) but after what came next and beyond, by comparison they weren't too bad.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
I'd say that the UK was due a recession, likely short and shallow, about 2001 on the economic cycle and that Gordon Brown was willing to pump a housing, consumer and public spending bubble to postpone it.
Firstly so that Labour could be re-elected in 2001, then for the aftermath of 9/11 and then Iraq, followed by the need of Labour being re-elected in 2005 and then finally - perhaps most importantly for Brown - for Brown to become PM in 2007.
The UK became Mr Creosote in economic terms - when the bubble burst the effects were horrible.
More that he saw the boom in finance as allowing the spending he'd always wanted to do.
So it wasn't a boom. "We've abolished boom and bust".
So he treated the boom as business as usual. So when the bust came, the deficit was structural.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
It will be a nightmare. This is perfectly obvious
For every “student that @Dura_Ace taught in Brussels” (lol, really??) there will be entire nations that want a pound of flesh, half our fishing, the crushing of the City, massive payments of Danegeld, on and on - because every country has a veto on further members and Britain is a big bad problematic country in so many ways. Some might just veto us outright
It will be a nightmare. Just as Brexit was a nightmare - tho at least in that instance they could not stop us leaving, in the end. In this instance they can literally say Nah - it just takes one country
Inability to see this is pitiful
It will doubtless be a torrid process. That much is eminently foreseeable but the outcome isn't. Of course people will (as you are doing here) shape their view of how it is 'bound to' play out according to their Leave/Remain leanings.
The outcome is absolutely in doubt. Big countries find it hard to enter the EU. See: Turkey
Britain has different issues to Turkey but they are major. A very large economy (relatively), lots of competition to EU companies, the City will try to win back all the business it lost to Amsterdam, Munich and Paris
It is entirely conceivable that, say, another French president - esp a nationalist like Le Pen (or her protege) will stand up like De Gaulle and say Non
Again, you are deluding yourself. The process would be torrid, expensive AND uncertain. A decade of torture and it might not even work
But wait, @Dura_Ace is still in touch with some mature students in Utrecht so we know it’s going to be fine
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
We do know that our representatives are not good at negotiating outcomes advantageous to us.
The interesting dynamic will be whether people look at our governments over the past few years and think - well I wouldn't mind a bit of EU oversight and a few Technical Standards.
We left so that we couldn't blame the EU for our predicament. I think there is a lot to be said for Covid and its related spending derailing much of the govt's (eg levelling up) plans, but I don't think you could look at our government over the past 5-10 years and think it was a model of competence.
So ironically people might yearn for a bit of EU bureaucracy.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
As multiple people have pointed out, we would get the same conditions of entry as everyone else. Which would mean signing up, eventually, for the Euro.
The UK economy/government budget doesn't meet the conditions to join the Euro. Either
1) The government bravely decides that service cuts *and* tax rises are awesome. And does a decade of Euro Austerity. 2) Or they continue with misalignment that prevents entry to the Euro. So the "eventually" in joining the Euro is the other side of "never".
Hmmm.... that's a tough one.
Well those multiple people are 'asserting' not 'pointing out' - but, yes, 'eventually' can do great work when used properly, can't it.
It seems fairly certain - if you open up the joining criteria for the EU for negotiation, every country will stick their oar in. This is why the EU likes and tries to enforce unanimity - otherwise everything turns into a re-negotiation.
I think the response for rejoin from the EU would be "Sure. Join the process. Let's see where you are in the alignments and legal stuff...."
As good a place to start as any. I'd expect a degree of 'special case' for the UK - but to what degree, and how manifested, who knows.
TBH, I'm not particularly bullish on the prospects of Rejoin. Brexit was enormously stupid on every level but it feels irreversible to me.
I've been in favour of, and campaigned for, British membership of the EEC/EU since the very early 60's. It seemed to me that no country our size could compete alone. And just about everyone I know who did business with the EU, whether financial or academic, was in favour of British participation. None of them seem to have changed their view as a result of the alleged 'Brexit freedoms'. I don't know of anyone who regards co-operation with Commonwealth countries as an adequate replacement. Pharmaceutically, which what I really know about, we've lost a lot. I realise we got the Covid vaccine about three months before it was released in Europe, but on reflection I'm not sure that outweighed the other losses we've suffered.
Now, politically at any rate, nothing would make me happier than to see us Rejoin, but I realise it's not going to be easy.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
That's a scary stat (per capita properties vs France).
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
As multiple people have pointed out, we would get the same conditions of entry as everyone else. Which would mean signing up, eventually, for the Euro.
The UK economy/government budget doesn't meet the conditions to join the Euro. Either
1) The government bravely decides that service cuts *and* tax rises are awesome. And does a decade of Euro Austerity. 2) Or they continue with misalignment that prevents entry to the Euro. So the "eventually" in joining the Euro is the other side of "never".
Hmmm.... that's a tough one.
Well those multiple people are 'asserting' not 'pointing out' - but, yes, 'eventually' can do great work when used properly, can't it.
It seems fairly certain - if you open up the joining criteria for the EU for negotiation, every country will stick their oar in. This is why the EU likes and tries to enforce unanimity - otherwise everything turns into a re-negotiation.
I think the response for rejoin from the EU would be "Sure. Join the process. Let's see where you are in the alignments and legal stuff...."
As good a place to start as any. I'd expect a degree of 'special case' for the UK - but to what degree, and how manifested, who knows.
TBH, I'm not particularly bullish on the prospects of Rejoin. Brexit was enormously stupid on every level but it feels irreversible to me.
The problem with "Special Case", from the EU point of view, is that it opens the door for every politician in Europe with a bone to pick and a special interest to appease. Spending 20 years sorting out some niggle due to an obscure Italian politician's demand regarding the labelling of flaked parmesan in Waitrose.....
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes will stand down at next year's Holyrood election.
The Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch MSP said she did not want to "seek re-election and miss any more of the precious early years of family life".
I think she’s making the right decision. Even with Holyrood’s more family friendly policies compared to Westminster, being a politician is still not compatible with family life, unfortunately. It is still more suited to middle aged men, singles (maybe why there are so many gay politicians) and the recently retired.
She probably doesn’t see herself becoming SNP leader above Stephen Flynn.
The Lib Dems will now be sniffing hard at the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch seat, particularly after their local election successes.
Agreed, I don't think JS will serve a full term (if he wins), I think he will want to pass the baton on to someone new at some point during the next parliament.
More and more people starting families, or at that stage in their mid 30s-mid 40s are starting to see the opportunities they are missing out on being so far away from home most of the week. It's a bruising job too. There's been a noticeable number of younger female MSP's standing down this time, particularly from the SNP.
The Greens will be cock a hoop with this announcement
Kate Forbes will be very aware of the strides the Lib Dems have made recently in the area, who knows, she may decide to plan a return once her family are older
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
That's a scary stat (per capita properties vs France).
Still - 20% GDV seems high.
Yeah - go out in the sticks in France and see houses for sale for 50K, as a normal thing. Sure, there are big expensive places - the locals giggle about the English who buy the 8 bedroom house in the centre of Chablis for a million. Then discover the AirBnB rates don't cover that.
Another signal - in the rural, touristy bits, AirBnB isn't hated. Because there is enough property, and building more isn't a big deal, renting the cottage at the bottom of your field/garden is what ordinary people do.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
There's nothing stopping you trying to become prime minister, if you feel that way.
FWIW, I think there's a pretty decent chance you could get elected for Reform. Taking it from there might be more difficult.
I might have a go
I could see myself as a minister. PM? Pushing it
Maybe a Cornish constituency
Maybe, or as you live in Camden which contains Sir Keir's seat I am sure Farage would jump at the chance to have you as Reform's candidate in Starmer's seat
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
They have the usual issue with big cities. But in rural France, you don't see people being forced out of the villages. Prices are staggeringly low by UK standards - which is why idiots from the UK buy - "A million for an 8 bedroom house with an ornamental fountain in the driveway and a ballroom - must be a steal".
Personally, I think a hot war might be the biggest factor in dramatically changing our relationship with the EU, either in or out.
If and when Putin does something too brazen with European states, we'll all either have to band together, or fall apart. The latter being by far the worst option.
I’m sure when VVP does something like that the masses ranks of the PB Armchair Brigade will be along pivoting their expertise onto this subject.
Goodness, not this rubbish again.
Well you cannot have a monopoly on rubbish, old chap.
I’m looking forward to it, when it happens
I bet you would.
Personally, I'd prefer to avoid a war. But you don't avoid a war by ignoring the warmonger on your doorstep.
A friend, living in a 5th storey council flat, has 2 folding e-cycles for mobility, an e-Brompton and a Gocycle; both are long established British brands. Her Council have just totally banned all e-scooter and e-bike batteries from the lifts.
Their stance is absolute, and to cite safety concerns and their legal duty to residents i.e. that they could go to prison if they don't take appropriate steps and there's a fire caused by an e-battery. Laptop and power tool batteries have not been banned.
It's a strange one with lots of angles. Standards exist. Fires would start when plugged in and charging in the main, surely? And AFAIK there are no stats collected distinguishing laptop batteries from e-bike batteries (does anyone know?) - there is not much difference, so how is the policy justified?
A totally separate angle is cycle storage as part of the residents parking for the block.
And calls for regulation of batteries have been being made consistently for a number of years. This is what happens when appropriate regulation is not done at the appropriate time.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Not sure about that, she will be more of an ally. They would have had discussions prior to his announcement to run for leader not to step on his toes. They are a generation apart as well, I can't see Swinney wanting to lead for years and years like Maggie Thatcher, his first period of SNP leadership started almost 25 years ago!
Big chance for the left of the party to pressure the SNP leader into a more radical position
Agree that Flynn is a more likely next leader, youth is on his side
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
I expect a few will go Reform or Alba, none will go LD
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
I'd say that the UK was due a recession, likely short and shallow, about 2001 on the economic cycle and that Gordon Brown was willing to pump a housing, consumer and public spending bubble to postpone it.
Firstly so that Labour could be re-elected in 2001, then for the aftermath of 9/11 and then Iraq, followed by the need of Labour being re-elected in 2005 and then finally - perhaps most importantly for Brown - for Brown to become PM in 2007.
The UK became Mr Creosote in economic terms - when the bubble burst the effects were horrible.
No, that is not right either. One crucial piece of evidence is Brown's claim to have abolished boom and bust, later amended to Tory boom and bust. His political enemies attack him for what they see as a vainglorious boast, rather than consider that he was serious. Labour had successfully dodged a European recession by counter-cyclical spending (like good Keynesians). That may have led to a degree of complacency but in the end, it did not matter because of trouble brewing in America.
Britain's problem was not that we were over-extended or in a bubble, but that our economy had become unbalanced and over-dependent on London's financial district which, of course was decimated by the Global Financial Crisis.
Incidentally, a point still lost on those who favour more development in and around London at the expense of the rest of the country.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
They have the usual issue with big cities. But in rural France, you don't see people being forced out of the villages. Prices are staggeringly low by UK standards - which is why idiots from the UK buy - "A million for an 8 bedroom house with an ornamental fountain in the driveway and a ballroom - must be a steal".
That's great - but hasn't solved the undelyling issue of young people working in urban areas unable to afford their housing.
In rural areas you have two options - massively increase supply by 8 million homes, as they have done in France - at massive cost, or just do what the Welsh have done and kill off demand for second homes, thereby crashing the price. The latter is rather easier.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
Land is 70% or more of the cost of construction anywhere people want to live, compared to 2% before the disastrous planning system was set up.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
They have the usual issue with big cities. But in rural France, you don't see people being forced out of the villages. Prices are staggeringly low by UK standards - which is why idiots from the UK buy - "A million for an 8 bedroom house with an ornamental fountain in the driveway and a ballroom - must be a steal".
I'm not sure it's about killing housing as an investment. Surely it's like farmland - kill it as a tax free route to riches, and there are lots of ways to do that, especially given that considerable progress has already been made with prices.
Attended the online hustings for the leadership of the Greens last Thursday.
Backed Zack this morning along with fellow candidates down the ticket.
It's clear he is loathed by some establishment Greens but as their only ideas are continuation neo liberalism they are best ignored.
Should Polansky win, an electoral pact with the new Party would imo, see challenges from left and right to the continuation billionaire backers who have been in power for the last 46 years.
They will enable NF4PM I hear you say.
No that's SKS and the red and blue Tories I think you will find.
A challenge from the populist left is the best way to stop the populist right. SKS has seen to that.
Polanski (with an -i not a -y) has supported the idea of some sort of pact with the new Corbyn/Sultana party, however Corbyn dismissed the idea recently. A Polanski-led Greens and a Corbyn-led party competing on the same political territory would seem a bad idea for both.
Indeed. Why go to all the trouble of a new party if you're then going to have an electoral alliance? Why not just join them directly?
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
She’s maybe just enjoying the summer holidays at home with her family and has realised it’s a better life than commuting to Edinburgh and not seeing them every day.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
The fact you use Paxman as 'evidence' for your argument is rather poor.
The country's economy was in a mess *before* the GFC in 2008, when looking beyond a year or two: consequently it wasn't in a good position to withstand it when it happened. As for austerity: I do wonder what Brown would have done in 2010. Given what he did as PM and chancellor, it would have been more self-serving than it would have been for the medium- or long-term good of the country.
And remember the poisonous shits behind Brown, Whelan, Draper, McBride et al. The ones who smeared people within and outside the Labour Party.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
They have the usual issue with big cities. But in rural France, you don't see people being forced out of the villages. Prices are staggeringly low by UK standards - which is why idiots from the UK buy - "A million for an 8 bedroom house with an ornamental fountain in the driveway and a ballroom - must be a steal".
I'm not sure it's about killing housing as an investment. Surely it's like farmland - kill it as a tax free route to riches, and there are lots of ways to do that, especially given that considerable progress has already been made with prices.
I was being a bit OTT. Removing some of the tax allowances that make it relatively attractive compared with other investments would be a good start. There's already a big incentive to invest in them simply because we all want to live in a nice house.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Not sure about that, she will be more of an ally. They would have had discussions prior to his announcement to run for leader not to step on his toes. They are a generation apart as well, I can't see Swinney wanting to lead for years and years like Maggie Thatcher, his first period of SNP leadership started almost 25 years ago!
Big chance for the left of the party to pressure the SNP leader into a more radical position
Agree that Flynn is a more likely next leader, youth is on his side
I suspect the main reason for him moving from Westminster is to make it easier to become SNP leader.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
As well as housing and homelessness, this depresses the wider economy as after rent and mortgage payments, most households have little left over for savings or discretionary spending, which means high streets decline and, yes, even the Great British Pub is shuttered. It also knackers the exchequer as tax income falls but spending on in-work benefits rises, ironically subsidising landlords and exacerbating the underlying problem.
A friend, living in a 5th storey council flat, has 2 folding e-cycles for mobility, an e-Brompton and a Gocycle; both are long established British brands. Her Council have just totally banned all e-scooter and e-bike batteries from the lifts.
Their stance is absolute, and to cite safety concerns and their legal duty to residents i.e. that they could go to prison if they don't take appropriate steps and there's a fire caused by an e-battery. Laptop batteries have not been banned.
It's a strange one with lots of angles. Standards exist. Fires would start when plugged in and charging in the main, surely? And AFAIK there are no stats collected distinguishing laptop batteries from e-bike batteries (does anyone know?) - there is not much difference, so how is the policy justified?
A totally separate angle is cycle storage as part of the residents parking for the block.
And calls for regulation of batteries have been being made consistently for a number of years. This is what happens when appropriate regulation is not done at the appropriate time.
The reason that they have banned e-bike batteries and not laptops, is volume of material. Same on airlines. A laptop battery letting go* is a small danger. An e-bike battery can threaten a whole building. Such fires have already happened and caused massive amounts of damage.
Fires are primarily during charging - but can happen after damage and are often time delayed from the damage - hours later.
After Grenfell, no one is going to take a chance. If they don't ban them and there is a fire, then they would be answering question in the dock. And the government el al will hang them out to dry - a useful scapegoat.
Regulating the batteries would require strict import control. Which would upset China and all the poorer people using cheap e-bike kits.
Personally, I would go for staggering fines for importing, possession and use of dangerous batteries. Scaled by the capacity of the battery. Plus criminal liability.
We actually have such rules for dangerous ICEs - but it's a non-existent problem, since the cheapest and worst petrol car conforms to all the regulations about safety with petrol. Petrol contains more energy per kilo than TNT.....
*Increasing problem - people are buying ancient laptops, second hand and replacing the batteries with cheap shite from guess where. There is a whole market in replacement batteries for laptops going back a decade or more.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
Well, exactly.
Remainers said it was silly to call a referendum and to vote out and to invoke article 50 with no idea of the end state. But the EU would do no negotiating before article 50.
Do you think the EU would let us do the negotiations before a referendum on rejoining? I doubt it. So the same arguments should apply...
Yes, it'd be the same in reverse. Rejoin Yes/No - then if Yes start the hard work on the detail. The notion of agreeing 'what Rejoin would look like' before there's a mandate for doing it is for the birds. Things don't work that way. Ditto, as you say, with Brexit. I'm a Remainer but was never in the camp of saying Leave should have been 'defined' before voting on it. The people vote on the concept then the government uses best efforts to enact. It'll be the same with Scotland if they ever get round to a re-run. Indy Yes/No - if yes start negotiating. All this stuff about having to nail down key details like the currency first is just whimsy.
That said, I've developed an intense dislike of referendums in general. If I never see another one it'll be too soon. Representative democracy should be able to handle every issue, big or small.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
I'd say that the UK was due a recession, likely short and shallow, about 2001 on the economic cycle and that Gordon Brown was willing to pump a housing, consumer and public spending bubble to postpone it.
Firstly so that Labour could be re-elected in 2001, then for the aftermath of 9/11 and then Iraq, followed by the need of Labour being re-elected in 2005 and then finally - perhaps most importantly for Brown - for Brown to become PM in 2007.
The UK became Mr Creosote in economic terms - when the bubble burst the effects were horrible.
No, that is not right either. One crucial piece of evidence is Brown's claim to have abolished boom and bust, later amended to Tory boom and bust. His political enemies attack him for what they see as a vainglorious boast, rather than consider that he was serious. Labour had successfully dodged a European recession by counter-cyclical spending (like good Keynesians). That may have led to a degree of complacency but in the end, it did not matter because of trouble brewing in America.
Britain's problem was not that we were over-extended or in a bubble, but that our economy had become unbalanced and over-dependent on London's financial district which, of course was decimated by the Global Financial Crisis.
Incidentally, a point still lost on those who favour more development in and around London at the expense of the rest of the country.
It was *both* that we were over-extended and in a bubble, *and* that we were too reliant on London's financial sector (with other factors as well). The latter something that he and Blair had ten years to fix, but made worse.
You have to remember that Brown *really* wanted to be PM, and the people around him did really, really nasty things to help him to become PM. He wanted the UK to have a hot economy for when he became PM. because it would mean it was more likely he would win the snap election he nearly called. Brown ran the UK economy for his own benefit, not the long-term good of the country.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
I expect a few will go Reform or Alba, none will go LD
Alba are finished now that Salmond has died. If I wasn’t SNP I would be Lib Dem. I suspect I’m not the only one.
Remainers will be of interest to social historians, in a very minor way. Sort of like those Japanese guerilla soldiers still fighting the good fight until the dawn of flower power. Just without the bravery, self-sacrifice and military prowess.
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
Well, first you are judging Brown as Chancellor not Prime Minister in your comparison. Second, you are wrong if you suppose that Brown's fudging the economic cycle had anything to do with the GFC or our response to it.
He drove the economy into a ravine whilst chancellor because he wanted to be PM - you cannot disconnect the two. And the terrible mid-term and long-term state of the economy put us in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. And hence led to austerity.
No, on all grounds you are just wrong. First, you can disconnect being Chancellor from being Prime Minister. Second, Brown did not drive the economy into a ravine. Third, we were not in a terrible position to deal with the GFC. Fourth, austerity was the political choice of the Cameron/Osborne government, and a poor one at that.
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
The fact you use Paxman as 'evidence' for your argument is rather poor.
The country's economy was in a mess *before* the GFC in 2008, when looking beyond a year or two: consequently it wasn't in a good position to withstand it when it happened. As for austerity: I do wonder what Brown would have done in 2010. Given what he did as PM and chancellor, it would have been more self-serving than it would have been for the medium- or long-term good of the country.
And remember the poisonous shits behind Brown, Whelan, Draper, McBride et al. The ones who smeared people within and outside the Labour Party.
Draper & McBride nearly broke the Labour Party - that's how crazy toxic they were.
Remainers will be of interest to social historians, in a very minor way. Sort of like those Japanese guerilla soldiers still fighting the good fight until the dawn of flower power. Just without the bravery, self-sacrifice and military prowess.
Brexiteers will be of interest like MAGA
How did social media rot the brains of so many people so quickly...
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
That's because you are a Tory.
Both were poor Prime Ministers, Cameron because of his hubris and Brown because of his angry demeanor (although I suspect history will be more sympathetic to Brown's role in dealing with the US derived financial crash- one which despite what Tories on here believe, he didn't create) but after what came next and beyond, by comparison they weren't too bad.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
As well as housing and homelessness, this depresses the wider economy as after rent and mortgage payments, most households have little left over for savings or discretionary spending, which means high streets decline and, yes, even the Great British Pub is shuttered. It also knackers the exchequer as tax income falls but spending on in-work benefits rises, ironically subsidising landlords and exacerbating the underlying problem.
The forthcoming Renters Rights Bill will be difficult for quite a few private landlords to handle, especially the Decent Home Standards. Landlords exiting the market will have the effect of providing more places for people to buy; will create some building activity as homes are converted back to homes; and most likely will limit rising rents through the pricing mechanisms built into the bill.
Perhaps an example of continuity politics being advantageous rather than the Punch & Judy stuff some others offer.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
Well, exactly.
Remainers said it was silly to call a referendum and to vote out and to invoke article 50 with no idea of the end state. But the EU would do no negotiating before article 50.
Do you think the EU would let us do the negotiations before a referendum on rejoining? I doubt it. So the same arguments should apply...
Yes, it'd be the same in reverse. Rejoin Yes/No - then if Yes start the hard work on the detail. The notion of agreeing 'what Rejoin would look like' before there's a mandate for doing it is for the birds. Things don't work that way. Ditto, as you say, with Brexit. I'm a Remainer but was never in the camp of saying Leave should have been 'defined' before voting on it. The people vote on the concept then the government uses best efforts to enact. It'll be the same with Scotland if they ever get round to a re-run. Indy Yes/No - if yes start negotiating. All this stuff about having to nail down key details like the currency first is just whimsy.
That said, I've developed an intense dislike of referendums in general. If I never see another one it'll be too soon. Representative democracy should be able to handle every issue, big or small.
I think we do know what rejoining would be like. The specific opt-outs the UK had and might not get back are relatively minor stuff. The uncertainty over them does not compare to the uncertainty of what form Brexit would take or what would happen with Scottish independence.
But I agree with you about referendums.
That all said, I expect the strategy will be for a closer (and closer) relationship with the EU while dodging the big in-or-out question. We can move to a Norway or Switzerland solution.
Well that was shit from Smith. Woakes get your pats on.
The best approach for the remaining batsmen is to play it positively see if we can get there in 5 overs or so, the longer it takes the more likely we simply get bowled out
Jesus I should be prime minister. This is ridiculous. Why am I not prime minister
I could do the job better than starmer just by giving it 20 minutes a day in between carving granitic ticklers and knocking out travel articles for the Gazette
Who was it who said 'I think I'd be rather good at it'? Augurs well.
TBF, he was rather good at it, compared to his successors. And immediate predecessor.
The best two PMs of the Millennium so far were brought down by factions within their own parties.
David Cameron's immediate predecessor was Gordon Brown, who led the international response to the Global Financial Crisis. Cameron broke up Europe and came within a gnat's whisker of breaking up the UK.
Gordon Brown was chancellor for a decade, and put the UK in a terrible position to deal with the financial crisis. Just because of his vainglorious ambition to be PM.
Cameron - to his credit - realised that there were some things causing rancour - such as Europe. He tried to deal with them, in the same way Blair and Brown tried to sweep those issues under the carpet and ignore the elephant-sized bulge in the middle of the sitting room floor.
Were either devils? No. Were either brilliant? No. But I'd place Cameron above Brown in a ranking of PMs, any day of the week.
That's because you are a Tory.
Both were poor Prime Ministers, Cameron because of his hubris and Brown because of his angry demeanor (although I suspect history will be more sympathetic to Brown's role in dealing with the US derived financial crash- one which despite what Tories on here believe, he didn't create) but after what came next and beyond, by comparison they weren't too bad.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
It will be a nightmare. This is perfectly obvious
For every “student that @Dura_Ace taught in Brussels” (lol, really??) there will be entire nations that want a pound of flesh, half our fishing, the crushing of the City, massive payments of Danegeld, on and on - because every country has a veto on further members and Britain is a big bad problematic country in so many ways. Some might just veto us outright
It will be a nightmare. Just as Brexit was a nightmare - tho at least in that instance they could not stop us leaving, in the end. In this instance they can literally say Nah - it just takes one country
Inability to see this is pitiful
It will doubtless be a torrid process. That much is eminently foreseeable but the outcome isn't. Of course people will (as you are doing here) shape their view of how it is 'bound to' play out according to their Leave/Remain leanings.
The outcome is absolutely in doubt. Big countries find it hard to enter the EU. See: Turkey
Britain has different issues to Turkey but they are major. A very large economy (relatively), lots of competition to EU companies, the City will try to win back all the business it lost to Amsterdam, Munich and Paris
It is entirely conceivable that, say, another French president - esp a nationalist like Le Pen (or her protege) will stand up like De Gaulle and say Non
Again, you are deluding yourself. The process would be torrid, expensive AND uncertain. A decade of torture and it might not even work
But wait, @Dura_Ace is still in touch with some mature students in Utrecht so we know it’s going to be fine
lol
You've misread my post and gleaned the opposite of what I was saying.
I'm saying there is no doubt the process will be torrid but that nothing other than that - and esp the outcome - can at this juncture be foreseen with any confidence at all.
So I am not, as it turns out, deluding myself. Big relief at this end about that.
Attended the online hustings for the leadership of the Greens last Thursday.
Backed Zack this morning along with fellow candidates down the ticket.
It's clear he is loathed by some establishment Greens but as their only ideas are continuation neo liberalism they are best ignored.
Should Polansky win, an electoral pact with the new Party would imo, see challenges from left and right to the continuation billionaire backers who have been in power for the last 46 years.
They will enable NF4PM I hear you say.
No that's SKS and the red and blue Tories I think you will find.
A challenge from the populist left is the best way to stop the populist right. SKS has seen to that.
Polanski (with an -i not a -y) has supported the idea of some sort of pact with the new Corbyn/Sultana party, however Corbyn dismissed the idea recently. A Polanski-led Greens and a Corbyn-led party competing on the same political territory would seem a bad idea for both.
Indeed. Why go to all the trouble of a new party if you're then going to have an electoral alliance? Why not just join them directly?
SDP Liberal Alliance !
I think the SDP were genuinely aiming at replacing Labour there initially - and of course Owen was hostile to a merger even after events strongly indicated that was the only meaningful way forward.
We have almost half a century's history of the effects of third-party and larger minor-party effects on the system.
But the sort of people signing up for Corbyn Project II are particularly certain that their ideas and plans are the right ones and that others should fit in with them.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
How odd that you insinuate racism when my suggestion specifically includes the post war generation of immigrants as locals.
There are rural areas all over the country - you'll find villages within ten miles of every city outside London - it wouldn't just be the tourist areas.
And my suggestion of varying the building by affordability of the area would allow more building in those areas which need it the most.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
We do know that our representatives are not good at negotiating outcomes advantageous to us.
We didn't do great with the Brexit negs, this is true, but there's no reason to think that's in our DNA.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
It will be a nightmare. This is perfectly obvious
For every “student that @Dura_Ace taught in Brussels” (lol, really??) there will be entire nations that want a pound of flesh, half our fishing, the crushing of the City, massive payments of Danegeld, on and on - because every country has a veto on further members and Britain is a big bad problematic country in so many ways. Some might just veto us outright
It will be a nightmare. Just as Brexit was a nightmare - tho at least in that instance they could not stop us leaving, in the end. In this instance they can literally say Nah - it just takes one country
Inability to see this is pitiful
It will doubtless be a torrid process. That much is eminently foreseeable but the outcome isn't. Of course people will (as you are doing here) shape their view of how it is 'bound to' play out according to their Leave/Remain leanings.
The outcome is absolutely in doubt. Big countries find it hard to enter the EU. See: Turkey
Britain has different issues to Turkey but they are major. A very large economy (relatively), lots of competition to EU companies, the City will try to win back all the business it lost to Amsterdam, Munich and Paris
It is entirely conceivable that, say, another French president - esp a nationalist like Le Pen (or her protege) will stand up like De Gaulle and say Non
Again, you are deluding yourself. The process would be torrid, expensive AND uncertain. A decade of torture and it might not even work
But wait, @Dura_Ace is still in touch with some mature students in Utrecht so we know it’s going to be fine
lol
You've misread my post and gleaned the opposite of what I was saying.
I'm saying there is no doubt the process will be torrid but that nothing other than that - and esp the outcome - can at this juncture be foreseen with any confidence at all.
So I am not, as it turns out, deluding myself. Big relief at this end about that.
Fair enough. I’ve reread your comment and I did misconstrue you. Apologies
Btw I tend to agree on referendums. I now see that they are hideous and divisive things if badly handled
However they are probably unavoidable for major constitutional changes. Sindy. EU. Etc
So we need to develop a much more sophisticated approach - we must learn from countries like Ireland and Switzerland that handle them with much more assurance, nuance, maturity
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
Well, exactly.
Remainers said it was silly to call a referendum and to vote out and to invoke article 50 with no idea of the end state. But the EU would do no negotiating before article 50.
Do you think the EU would let us do the negotiations before a referendum on rejoining? I doubt it. So the same arguments should apply...
Yes, it'd be the same in reverse. Rejoin Yes/No - then if Yes start the hard work on the detail. The notion of agreeing 'what Rejoin would look like' before there's a mandate for doing it is for the birds. Things don't work that way. Ditto, as you say, with Brexit. I'm a Remainer but was never in the camp of saying Leave should have been 'defined' before voting on it. The people vote on the concept then the government uses best efforts to enact. It'll be the same with Scotland if they ever get round to a re-run. Indy Yes/No - if yes start negotiating. All this stuff about having to nail down key details like the currency first is just whimsy.
That said, I've developed an intense dislike of referendums in general. If I never see another one it'll be too soon. Representative democracy should be able to handle every issue, big or small.
I think we do know what rejoining would be like. The specific opt-outs the UK had and might not get back are relatively minor stuff. The uncertainty over them does not compare to the uncertainty of what form Brexit would take or what would happen with Scottish independence.
But I agree with you about referendums.
That all said, I expect the strategy will be for a closer (and closer) relationship with the EU while dodging the big in-or-out question. We can move to a Norway or Switzerland solution.
Rejoin has less inherent uncertainty and risk than Brexit, yes. But still, many imponderables around how the politics will look at the time.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
I expect a few will go Reform or Alba, none will go LD
Alba are finished now that Salmond has died. If I wasn’t SNP I would be Lib Dem. I suspect I’m not the only one.
Alba are polling 3% on the list in the latest poll, they got 1.7% in 2021
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
I expect a few will go Reform or Alba, none will go LD
Alba are finished now that Salmond has died. If I wasn’t SNP I would be Lib Dem. I suspect I’m not the only one.
Kate Forbes was the SNP leader most feared by unionists. That the SNP members couldn't see that - and voted in a klutz like Humza - shows how terminally deluded they are in their misunderstanding of the Scottish electorate.
(For info - Scots are just as socially conservative as the English - and just as exasperated by all the woke crap. The blob that dominates Holyrood just doesn't get it. Hence the debacle about male rapists in women's prisons)
I suspect her decision is based on a number of factors. She just couldn't see a way past the membership to the leadership, has a young family, and is under pressure in her Highland constituency from the LibDems, who will certainly gain it with her departure.
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
As multiple people have pointed out, we would get the same conditions of entry as everyone else. Which would mean signing up, eventually, for the Euro.
The UK economy/government budget doesn't meet the conditions to join the Euro. Either
1) The government bravely decides that service cuts *and* tax rises are awesome. And does a decade of Euro Austerity. 2) Or they continue with misalignment that prevents entry to the Euro. So the "eventually" in joining the Euro is the other side of "never".
Hmmm.... that's a tough one.
Well those multiple people are 'asserting' not 'pointing out' - but, yes, 'eventually' can do great work when used properly, can't it.
It seems fairly certain - if you open up the joining criteria for the EU for negotiation, every country will stick their oar in. This is why the EU likes and tries to enforce unanimity - otherwise everything turns into a re-negotiation.
I think the response for rejoin from the EU would be "Sure. Join the process. Let's see where you are in the alignments and legal stuff...."
As good a place to start as any. I'd expect a degree of 'special case' for the UK - but to what degree, and how manifested, who knows.
TBH, I'm not particularly bullish on the prospects of Rejoin. Brexit was enormously stupid on every level but it feels irreversible to me.
The problem with "Special Case", from the EU point of view, is that it opens the door for every politician in Europe with a bone to pick and a special interest to appease. Spending 20 years sorting out some niggle due to an obscure Italian politician's demand regarding the labelling of flaked parmesan in Waitrose.....
Yes, and that is a powerful factor in the direction of nothing bespoke for us. But does it mean we'd be treated exactly like some country looking to join for the first time? There's the queue etc? I doubt that. I'd expect some flex. But as I say, how much and in what, nobody knows at this point.
Demand for concrete has fallen to its lowest level since 1963 in a serious blow to Labour’s hopes of building more houses.
Telegraph
Well, Economics 1A would suggest that would be make it much cheaper for the government to pop some medium-density council housing up. I think HS2 was crowding out long-term supply of concrete too?
(I know there is deeply complex science behind different types of concrete before someone cracks into me).
Building council houses only wins votes if local people get them.
And local means people with a generation or more history in that area, not someone who arrived a few months ago.
My suggestion would be to build a pair of council semis in every village in the country every year / two years / five years depending on the size of the village and the local house prices.
With only people who had an ancestor living in this country 50+ years ago eligible to live in them.
Most council housing rules require you to have lived in the area for more than "a few months". Here's Camden's:
My specific proposal was for rural council housing - where there are many areas where young people struggle to find any housing at all, let alone affordable housing.
But your solution was nonsense - immigrants from overseas are not the reason why people in rural areas struggle to find housing. It's minted second home owners from the rest of the UK.
You'd need to restrict it to people with local roots, but given how mobile the population is now that is becoming unusual. I think the best criteria would be "went to secondary school in this catchment". You probably wouldn't like that very much because it's means a second generation Pakistani immigrant who grew up on Anglesey would get access to the house there before an "Anglo-Saxon" from Dorset.
The real issue (as in real for real people) is that these local housing crises have forced people to move away. They would love to move back to their "home town" - but have now been away for years.
How do you account for "born and lived in X until 18. Now lived 6 years, 20 miles away, in a variety of bloody horrible temporary accommodations."?
As I have been saying for years, we don't have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis. There is so much new housing being built right now.
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
It's both affordability *and* availability.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
If you keep up bringing up the 8 million additional houses in France, I'll keep reminding PB that housing costs in France are similar to ours - and they have more overcrowding than we do.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
As well as housing and homelessness, this depresses the wider economy as after rent and mortgage payments, most households have little left over for savings or discretionary spending, which means high streets decline and, yes, even the Great British Pub is shuttered. It also knackers the exchequer as tax income falls but spending on in-work benefits rises, ironically subsidising landlords and exacerbating the underlying problem.
The forthcoming Renters Rights Bill will be difficult for quite a few private landlords to handle, especially the Decent Home Standards. Landlords exiting the market will have the effect of providing more places for people to buy; will create some building activity as homes are converted back to homes; and most likely will limit rising rents through the pricing mechanisms built into the bill.
Perhaps an example of continuity politics being advantageous rather than the Punch & Judy stuff some others offer.
It won't help with overall supply.
Rents will get more expensive, but there might be a brief dip/slowdown in house prices.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
I expect a few will go Reform or Alba, none will go LD
Alba are finished now that Salmond has died. If I wasn’t SNP I would be Lib Dem. I suspect I’m not the only one.
Kate Forbes was the SNP leader most feared by unionists. That the SNP members couldn't see that - and voted in a klutz like Humza - shows how terminally deluded they are in their misunderstanding of the Scottish electorate.
(For info - Scots are just as socially conservative as the English - and just as exasperated by all the woke crap. The blob that dominates Holyrood just doesn't get it. Hence the debacle about male rapists in women's prisons)
I suspect her decision is based on a number of factors. She just couldn't see a way past the membership to the leadership, has a young family, and is under pressure in her Highland constituency from the LibDems, who will certainly gain it with her departure.
Quite a consequential decision.
Scots are more socially conservative than the English arguably. They legalised abortion and homosexuality later.
I am a bit surprised at this, more at the timing as the seat selection process for the SNP is pretty much done.
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Will be a big relief to Swinney as Forbes was his main potential rival for the SNP leadership
Whither more socially conservative supporters of Scottish independence? Alba has failed, no-one to lead a socially conservative faction within the SNP. Do they give up on independence and go for Reform UK? Do they go for the pro-federalism LibDems?
I expect a few will go Reform or Alba, none will go LD
Alba are finished now that Salmond has died. If I wasn’t SNP I would be Lib Dem. I suspect I’m not the only one.
Kate Forbes was the SNP leader most feared by unionists. That the SNP members couldn't see that - and voted in a klutz like Humza - shows how terminally deluded they are in their misunderstanding of the Scottish electorate.
(For info - Scots are just as socially conservative as the English - and just as exasperated by all the woke crap. The blob that dominates Holyrood just doesn't get it. Hence the debacle about male rapists in women's prisons)
I suspect her decision is based on a number of factors. She just couldn't see a way past the membership to the leadership, has a young family, and is under pressure in her Highland constituency from the LibDems, who will certainly gain it with her departure.
Quite a consequential decision.
Scots are more socially conservative than the English arguably. They legalised abortion and homosexuality later.
Scots are economically left of the English but socially yes a bit more conservative, the Western Isles is also the only area of the UK that still bans Sunday trading
In the US. The guns lobby groups have launched a legal case to abolish the 1934 National Firearms Act which created the national firearms registry for many kinds of firearms. Previously it was also a tax so that made it constitutional.
Without the nominal federal tax on firearms the act becomes unconstitutional per a Supreme Court decision of 1935. The Big Beautiful Act abolishes that tax on firearms so rendering the registry of firearms unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. The gun groups want it gon
Anybody who thinks the EU wouldn't give a rejoining UK an opt-out on the Euro (although it wouldn't be called an 'opt-out') knows SFA about Berlaymont and its culture. In the pre-brexit Golden Age, I prepared 20+ students for the European Commission language assessments and I'm still in touch with some of them so I reckon I know a bit about it.
Rejoin of the UK and the utter humiliation of the leavers would be the final vindication of "The Project" on an emotional and philosophical level. For that prize, they'd give a lot and a Euro opt-out marketed as an assessment period of undefined duration wouldn't even make them blink twice.
lol
This is the exact psychological equivalent of “we hold all the cards in this negotiation” and “German car makers will demand to give us a great deal” ie all that hopeful sad bullshit from the Brexiteers - only from the other side, this time
Hilarious
Not really. It's just a useful corrective to all the 'we'd have to join the Euro' chestnutting.
The truth is we don't know what rejoining would look like.
As multiple people have pointed out, we would get the same conditions of entry as everyone else. Which would mean signing up, eventually, for the Euro.
The UK economy/government budget doesn't meet the conditions to join the Euro. Either
1) The government bravely decides that service cuts *and* tax rises are awesome. And does a decade of Euro Austerity. 2) Or they continue with misalignment that prevents entry to the Euro. So the "eventually" in joining the Euro is the other side of "never".
Hmmm.... that's a tough one.
Well those multiple people are 'asserting' not 'pointing out' - but, yes, 'eventually' can do great work when used properly, can't it.
It seems fairly certain - if you open up the joining criteria for the EU for negotiation, every country will stick their oar in. This is why the EU likes and tries to enforce unanimity - otherwise everything turns into a re-negotiation.
I think the response for rejoin from the EU would be "Sure. Join the process. Let's see where you are in the alignments and legal stuff...."
As good a place to start as any. I'd expect a degree of 'special case' for the UK - but to what degree, and how manifested, who knows.
TBH, I'm not particularly bullish on the prospects of Rejoin. Brexit was enormously stupid on every level but it feels irreversible to me.
The problem with "Special Case", from the EU point of view, is that it opens the door for every politician in Europe with a bone to pick and a special interest to appease. Spending 20 years sorting out some niggle due to an obscure Italian politician's demand regarding the labelling of flaked parmesan in Waitrose.....
Yes, and that is a powerful factor in the direction of nothing bespoke for us. But does it mean we'd be treated exactly like some country looking to join for the first time? There's the queue etc? I doubt that. I'd expect some flex. But as I say, how much and in what, nobody knows at this point.
Many in the EU would love to have us back in. It proves the EU is right!
They're obviously not going to treat us similarly to, say, Montenegro or other current applicants. We're clearly very different in size, in wealth, in history with the EU, in alignment with the EU etc. etc.
Comments
Of course, you should now move austerity from the Brown to the Cameron column to give yet another reason Brown was a better Prime Minister.
It will save time in any future comparison if you just remember that David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North.
As additional evidence, here is Jeremy Paxman putting David Cameron into Room 101:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek3l9iaByro
(Note that Obama can play table tennis.)
Average house prices in West Cambourne are £400k. Now that might or might not be a lot (I'm out of touch with average salaries and average house prices) but it seems high to me.
And there are plenty of such developments ongoing throughout the country. At some point the supply will shift the curve but right now it doesn't seem to be doing so. Not sure what the profit margin for developers is (Google - 20% GDV which seems high) but I'm sure those haven't been dropping like a stone either.
Remainers said it was silly to call a referendum and to vote out and to invoke article 50 with no idea of the end state. But the EU would do no negotiating before article 50.
Do you think the EU would let us do the negotiations before a referendum on rejoining? I doubt it. So the same arguments should apply...
It’s like they didn’t expect any tourists
She probably doesn’t see herself becoming SNP leader above Stephen Flynn.
The Lib Dems will now be sniffing hard at the Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch seat, particularly after their local election successes.
Firstly so that Labour could be re-elected in 2001, then for the aftermath of 9/11 and then Iraq, followed by the need of Labour being re-elected in 2005 and then finally - perhaps most importantly for Brown - for Brown to become PM in 2007.
The UK became Mr Creosote in economic terms - when the bubble burst the effects were horrible.
I’m looking forward to it, when it happens
That meant when we hit the GFC we are pretty badly prepared, verging on negligently so.
If they don’t want tourists, which some of these places don’t, we will take our money where it is wanted.
Both were poor Prime Ministers, Cameron because of his hubris and Brown because of his angry demeanor (although I suspect history will be more sympathetic to Brown's role in dealing with the US derived financial crash- one which despite what Tories on here believe, he didn't create) but after what came next and beyond, by comparison they weren't too bad.
So it wasn't a boom. "We've abolished boom and bust".
So he treated the boom as business as usual. So when the bust came, the deficit was structural.
Britain has different issues to Turkey but they are major. A very large economy (relatively), lots of competition to EU companies, the City will try to win back all the business it lost to Amsterdam, Munich and Paris
It is entirely conceivable that, say, another French president - esp a nationalist like Le Pen (or her protege) will stand up like De Gaulle and say Non
Again, you are deluding yourself. The process would be torrid, expensive AND uncertain. A decade of torture and it might not even work
But wait, @Dura_Ace is still in touch with some mature students in Utrecht so we know it’s going to be fine
lol
Obvious reasons, young family, important to have a life outside politics, etc. She would have been favourite to retain her seat, the Lib Dems will fancy their chances now.
There will be quite a lot of pressure on JS to take the SNP further to the left, assuming he wins next years election
Her name is still up on the candidates list:
https://www.snp.org/snp-announce-candidates-for-2026-scottish-parliament-elections/
We left so that we couldn't blame the EU for our predicament. I think there is a lot to be said for Covid and its related spending derailing much of the govt's (eg levelling up) plans, but I don't think you could look at our government over the past 5-10 years and think it was a model of competence.
So ironically people might yearn for a bit of EU bureaucracy.
TBH, I'm not particularly bullish on the prospects of Rejoin. Brexit was enormously stupid on every level but it feels irreversible to me.
Pharmaceutically, which what I really know about, we've lost a lot. I realise we got the Covid vaccine about three months before it was released in Europe, but on reflection I'm not sure that outweighed the other losses we've suffered.
Now, politically at any rate, nothing would make me happier than to see us Rejoin, but I realise it's not going to be easy.
Same population as France and 8 million fewer properties.
A big problem in construction is the cost of labour - which is largely a function of the... cost of housing. Both as a direct input and as a part of the cost of materials.
And it’s not Brexit. It’s any non Schengen flight. Ireland the same
It makes the UK look a model of smooth efficiency
Still - 20% GDV seems high.
I know this causes conniptions but distribution is really important for housing too, particularly when the demand curve is so inelastic. You can increase quantity of housing stock but it simply doesn't have much of an effect on price.
You need to kill housing as a good investment - or as a nice holiday home - so that demand for housing reflects that for somewhere to live, not a store of wealth.
More and more people starting families, or at that stage in their mid 30s-mid 40s are starting to see the opportunities they are missing out on being so far away from home most of the week. It's a bruising job too. There's been a noticeable number of younger female MSP's standing down this time, particularly from the SNP.
The Greens will be cock a hoop with this announcement
Kate Forbes will be very aware of the strides the Lib Dems have made recently in the area, who knows, she may decide to plan a return once her family are older
Another signal - in the rural, touristy bits, AirBnB isn't hated. Because there is enough property, and building more isn't a big deal, renting the cottage at the bottom of your field/garden is what ordinary people do.
Personally, I'd prefer to avoid a war. But you don't avoid a war by ignoring the warmonger on your doorstep.
A friend, living in a 5th storey council flat, has 2 folding e-cycles for mobility, an e-Brompton and a Gocycle; both are long established British brands. Her Council have just totally banned all e-scooter and e-bike batteries from the lifts.
Their stance is absolute, and to cite safety concerns and their legal duty to residents i.e. that they could go to prison if they don't take appropriate steps and there's a fire caused by an e-battery. Laptop and power tool batteries have not been banned.
It's a strange one with lots of angles. Standards exist. Fires would start when plugged in and charging in the main, surely? And AFAIK there are no stats collected distinguishing laptop batteries from e-bike batteries (does anyone know?) - there is not much difference, so how is the policy justified?
A totally separate angle is cycle storage as part of the residents parking for the block.
And calls for regulation of batteries have been being made consistently for a number of years. This is what happens when appropriate regulation is not done at the appropriate time.
Big chance for the left of the party to pressure the SNP leader into a more radical position
Agree that Flynn is a more likely next leader, youth is on his side
Britain's problem was not that we were over-extended or in a bubble, but that our economy had become unbalanced and over-dependent on London's financial district which, of course was decimated by the Global Financial Crisis.
Incidentally, a point still lost on those who favour more development in and around London at the expense of the rest of the country.
In rural areas you have two options - massively increase supply by 8 million homes, as they have done in France - at massive cost, or just do what the Welsh have done and kill off demand for second homes, thereby crashing the price. The latter is rather easier.
Anything else is spare change.
The country's economy was in a mess *before* the GFC in 2008, when looking beyond a year or two: consequently it wasn't in a good position to withstand it when it happened. As for austerity: I do wonder what Brown would have done in 2010. Given what he did as PM and chancellor, it would have been more self-serving than it would have been for the medium- or long-term good of the country.
And remember the poisonous shits behind Brown, Whelan, Draper, McBride et al. The ones who smeared people within and outside the Labour Party.
Fires are primarily during charging - but can happen after damage and are often time delayed from the damage - hours later.
After Grenfell, no one is going to take a chance. If they don't ban them and there is a fire, then they would be answering question in the dock. And the government el al will hang them out to dry - a useful scapegoat.
Regulating the batteries would require strict import control. Which would upset China and all the poorer people using cheap e-bike kits.
Personally, I would go for staggering fines for importing, possession and use of dangerous batteries. Scaled by the capacity of the battery. Plus criminal liability.
We actually have such rules for dangerous ICEs - but it's a non-existent problem, since the cheapest and worst petrol car conforms to all the regulations about safety with petrol. Petrol contains more energy per kilo than TNT.....
*Increasing problem - people are buying ancient laptops, second hand and replacing the batteries with cheap shite from guess where. There is a whole market in replacement batteries for laptops going back a decade or more.
That said, I've developed an intense dislike of referendums in general. If I never see another one it'll be too soon. Representative democracy should be able to handle every issue, big or small.
You have to remember that Brown *really* wanted to be PM, and the people around him did really, really nasty things to help him to become PM. He wanted the UK to have a hot economy for when he became PM. because it would mean it was more likely he would win the snap election he nearly called. Brown ran the UK economy for his own benefit, not the long-term good of the country.
How did social media rot the brains of so many people so quickly...
Perhaps an example of continuity politics being advantageous rather than the Punch & Judy stuff some others offer.
But I agree with you about referendums.
That all said, I expect the strategy will be for a closer (and closer) relationship with the EU while dodging the big in-or-out question. We can move to a Norway or Switzerland solution.
I'm saying there is no doubt the process will be torrid but that nothing other than that - and esp the outcome - can at this juncture be foreseen with any confidence at all.
So I am not, as it turns out, deluding myself. Big relief at this end about that.
We have almost half a century's history of the effects of third-party and larger minor-party effects on the system.
But the sort of people signing up for Corbyn Project II are particularly certain that their ideas and plans are the right ones and that others should fit in with them.
There are rural areas all over the country - you'll find villages within ten miles of every city outside London - it wouldn't just be the tourist areas.
And my suggestion of varying the building by affordability of the area would allow more building in those areas which need it the most.
Btw I tend to agree on referendums. I now see that they are hideous and divisive things if badly handled
However they are probably unavoidable for major constitutional changes. Sindy. EU. Etc
So we need to develop a much more sophisticated approach - we must learn from countries like Ireland and Switzerland that handle them with much more assurance, nuance, maturity
(Wasn't the best decision Dharmasena has ever made, mind.)
Ooh squeaky bum time.
That did always look value though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
But still. Come on, only 20 runs.
(For info - Scots are just as socially conservative as the English - and just as exasperated by all the woke crap. The blob that dominates Holyrood just doesn't get it. Hence the debacle about male rapists in women's prisons)
I suspect her decision is based on a number of factors. She just couldn't see a way past the membership to the leadership, has a young family, and is under pressure in her Highland constituency from the LibDems, who will certainly gain it with her departure.
Quite a consequential decision.
Rents will get more expensive, but there might be a brief dip/slowdown in house prices.
They are going to lose.
In the US. The guns lobby groups have launched a legal case to abolish the 1934 National Firearms Act which created the national firearms registry for many kinds of firearms. Previously it was also a tax so that made it constitutional.
Without the nominal federal tax on firearms the act becomes unconstitutional per a Supreme Court decision of 1935. The Big Beautiful Act abolishes that tax on firearms so rendering the registry of firearms unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. The gun groups want it gon
They're obviously not going to treat us similarly to, say, Montenegro or other current applicants. We're clearly very different in size, in wealth, in history with the EU, in alignment with the EU etc. etc.
Maybe you have this problem and should raid the duty free aisle at Faro so you can see the situation clearly?