And who's actually going to Perth? Most of the pax will be going to Sydney or Melbourne, in which case a break in Singapore or Dubai with a 13 hour flight would be way better than seventeen hours on a single plane. As you say, no thanks unless in at least biz class, and even then...
And who's actually going to Perth? Most of the pax will be going to Sydney or Melbourne, in which case a break in Singapore or Dubai with a 13 hour flight would be way better than seventeen hours on a single plane. As you say, no thanks unless in at least biz class, and even then...
I have an acquaintance who is recruiting mine workers for the big mines N of Perth, and he expects to fly directly there from all sorts of places.
That's right. When I was working full time in London, I rent a one-bedroom flat above a shop on the noisy Holloway Road and paid £1300/month. Nice place as far as it went, but unaffordable when I left my job because of family commitments. So I've moved to a pleasant residential close in North Nottingham and rent a 3-room place with a garage for £500/month. On reflection, I was working 8 hours a day to afford to live worse.
In London, personally I think they should stuff the skyline and build, build, build, up, up, up. It's nice to get a good view when you glance out now and then. But being able to afford to live is critical.
Stuffingts are snapped up for BTL or by foreign investors.
Certaiad in mind with his new 'Greater X' mayoralities.
I agreetable housing.
Because hip young people who work for Google want to work in the centre of the global supercity, in super trendy Kings X right next to the hip young people who work for Facebook, and the Guardian, and the Crick Institute, and the sexy students at St Martin's, where they can all hang out together in glossy vinotecas and sleek new gyms.
These people don't want to work in Bracknell, and they simply won't work in Bradford.
What proportion of London's population is actually living the cosmometro posh restaurants and trendy bars lifestyle ?
And what proportion are putting in all hours working and commuting whilst living in squalor ?
I understand your bewilderment, and share it. Even as I get Millennials showing me how tough life is, I go out into London and it's packed with young people. It's a paradox.
A few days ago, indeed, I had lunch at one of those Kings Cross winebars with some friends. It's called Vinoteca and it's owned by a pal of mine. All steel and glass and smartness.
OK it's Christmas but the place was heaving, and me and my friends were nearly the oldest people there. And this is a BIG winebar.
Somehow young people afford the lifestyle. And I dunno how. Maybe they sleep under bridges.
But are they affording the lifestyle or is it merely going on the credit card ?
Meanwhile in the last decade governments have borrowed a trillion quid and pumped it into the economy - much of that is what is filling the restaurants, bars and coffee shops.
I've been watching The Grand Tour (belatedly). It's good, sometimes great, and VERY funny.
Simply because Clarkson was, is and remains a comic genius with ineffable timing. The BBC Sacked The Talent.
Dumb.
IMO, Episode 1 and 4, brilliant (4 would never have got past the BBC given the outcry over vegan £5 notes)...2 terrible, 3 ok.
I am sure not if the show format as is is going to last the full 3 seasons. The faux killing a celeb every week is old hat already.
Disagree. I just watched episode 2, hearing it was dreadful. I thought it was excellent, with moments of laugh-out-loud genius. It's funnier than any British sitcom of the moment. I've realised, late in the day, that Clarkson is like a kind of Eric Morecambe/Tommy Cooper.
Someone just innately funny (especially in the filmed sequences). He doesn't have to do much but he does it with exquisite timing. The politics are almost irrelevant, he could be a commie, he'd still be funny.
Some more background on the Manchester mayoral contest would be useful from someone here in the know. Mr Eagles?
How big is the 'Greater Manchester' area and which outlying towns does it cover? How close to Warrington, Sheffield, Blackburn, Macclesfield etc does it come?
Who are the candidates? We know Mr Burnham has a good chance, but are there any well known local independents who might stand? Betfair's relatively illiquid market has Burnham layable at 1.25, is his chance really as tight as 1/4?
If Burnham stands and wins, and as expected Paul Nuttall stands in the Leigh by-election, will it be time for the return of Ed Balls to save the seat for Labour?
Lived in Manchester for a while. Greater Manchester is not that much smaller than Greater London in size and covers the boroughs of Wigan (where Leigh is), Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside (towns like Ashton and Stalybridge), Stockport, Trafford, Salford and Manchester. Most of the boroughs are a pretty sizable 2-300k, so the city itself doesn't dominate.
GM has a big North/South divide. The North (Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, most of Salford, but not Bury which is a bit better off) are relatively poor and still a bit post-industrial. The southern boroughs closest to Cheshire of Trafford and Stockport have far more wealthy areas the further out you go which vote Conservative/Lib Dem. Manchester itself has pockets of wealth in the centre and Didsbury etc combined with belts of deprived areas like Wythenshawe. Overall Labour wins the core, Tories and Lib dems on the periphery both north and south. One thing to consider is that Manchester (and to a lesser extent Salford) has a huge student population.
Candidates; Conservative: Sean Anstee Labour: Andy Burnham Lib Dems: Jane Brophy UKIP: Shneur Odze Greens: Deyika Nzeribe Eng Dems: Stephen Morris
Anstee is probably the most likely challenger if any; leader of Trafford Council, young at only 29, socially liberal Cameron-style conservative.
Can't see Nuttall doing well in Leigh, there are better seats in GM. The town itself is one of the largest without a rail line/metrolink which has been a bone of contentiob, but recently a very popular rapid bus route has been put in place. Much like in the Oldham by-election which had not long since had the Metrolink brought to the borough, can see an anti-Labour backlash.
There are many issues with that, one of the more important being that houses are just one part of the equation. You also need everything that builds a community, not just houses: shops, facilities, business premises, etc, etc. These are not cheap to build and need planning if they are to be effective. Then there are the other things such as roads, transport links etc.
It needs planning.
No, they don't need planning. Build the train line, people want to live near stations so they want to buy houses so people build them, shops want customers so they open them where people live, it works out fine. The reason these things appear hard is because you're used to the government planning them, which is the only way you can manage to get stupid outcomes like houses without shops.
LOL. No.
That's been tried many times and it rarely, if ever, works. The landowners (and then developers) make more money from housing, so they cram as many houses on as possible. And yes, that'll happen even under your proposed changes.
You end up with houses with no green areas nearby; shops that are either too big or too small for the clientele, and therefore fail. A road network that makes no sense and immediately does not cope with the planned traffic. No zoning, and no sensible structure.
S106 exists because councils need to apply the thumbscrews to get developers to even consider building these things. In old villages these things develop over the decades and centuries (sometimes poorly); in new developments they need to be planned.
I daresay we've got one or two experts on this topic on here ...
If house buyers don't value green spaces, they'll buy houses from developers who maximized for low cost and less green space. I don't see why you think everyone should have to obey your opinion about how much green space they should have.
If you're going to do this level of central planning there are other areas where it would make more sense. For example, the government could take control of people's food shopping, as it's objectively clear that people aren't choosing healthy diets, often with very serious health consequences.
"... teachers almost always automatically improve as time goes on because like all skills you get better with practice. ..."
That is not actually true. It requires people to learn from their experiences; the good old experiential learning cycle and all that good stuff. Some people have twenty years of experience others have one year's experience repeated twenty times.
Leave aside the effects of costs of living in different parts of the country, Teachers in this country are very badly paid given what we expect from them and the importance of their work. They are also subject to far too much bureaucracy and enforced record keeping.
I was once told by someone who should know that the head of a primary school where I used to live was on over 90k and her deputy was on circa 65k.
I think most people would say they are decent sums of money.
I want to say so much more about those two, but I am trying to move on from the stress and anger those arseholes caused.
I’d be very surprised at that.
The last figure I saw was that there are 1,230 teachers were paid more than £100,000 (for 2014).
Doesn’t mean, of course, that either of us are wrong! “Averages” are what they say they are. However, I’d be surprised if ‘100’s” of primary heads are on £100k or more. A few, maybe.
I can't say who told me the salaries of those 2 individuals.
All I can say is that they were in a position to know and I see no reason for them to have misled me.
I can't talk about the bigger picture as I simply don't know.
Next time I see the individual I will ask them for more detail of general salary levels.
Mind you, the person in question lives in a very nice house so they obviously doing well out of the education establishment themselves.
I've been watching The Grand Tour (belatedly). It's good, sometimes great, and VERY funny.
Simply because Clarkson was, is and remains a comic genius with ineffable timing. The BBC Sacked The Talent.
Dumb.
I'm half convinced that was down to Clarkson's words beforehand - he was the one who publicly said he'd been told any more incidents and he'd be fired, or words to that effect. Had he not revealed that, I'm not convinced they'd have sacked him even though he punched that producer, for all apparently some people there didn't like him he was a money spinner and it makes no sense to sack him, they'd probably have suspended him or something. But having announced to the world he'd be sacked if he did something like that and then doing it, what option was there?
From a marketing POV, the BBC's mistake was to allow Top Gear to be defined by Clarkson so he was the brand, not the programme itself and the BBC by association. (Although the same apparent mistake will probably benefit them on GBBO). The split with Clarkson was probably inevitable. They need to move on.
Some more background on the Manchester mayoral contest would be useful from someone here in the know. Mr Eagles?
How big is the 'Greater Manchester' area and which outlying towns does it cover? How close to Warrington, Sheffield, Blackburn, Macclesfield etc does it come?
Who are the candidates? We know Mr Burnham has a good chance, but are there any well known local independents who might stand? Betfair's relatively illiquid market has Burnham layable at 1.25, is his chance really as tight as 1/4?
If Burnham stands and wins, and as expected Paul Nuttall stands in the Leigh by-election, will it be time for the return of Ed Balls to save the seat for Labour?
Lived in Manchester for a while. Greater Manchester is not that much smaller than Greater London in size and covers the boroughs of Wigan (where Leigh is), Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside (towns like Ashton and Stalybridge), Stockport, Trafford, Salford and Manchester. Most of the boroughs are a pretty sizable 2-300k, so the city itself doesn't dominate.
GM has a big North/South divide. The North (Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, most of Salford, but not Bury which is a bit better off) are relatively poor and still a bit post-industrial. The southern boroughs closest to Cheshire of Trafford and Stockport have far more wealthy areas the further out you go which vote Conservative/Lib Dem. Manchester itself has pockets of wealth in the centre and Didsbury etc combined with belts of deprived areas like Wythenshawe. Overall Labour wins the core, Tories and Lib dems on the periphery both north and south. One thing to consider is that Manchester (and to a lesser extent Salford) has a huge student population.
Candidates; Conservative: Sean Anstee Labour: Andy Burnham Lib Dems: Jane Brophy UKIP: Shneur Odze Greens: Deyika Nzeribe Eng Dems: Stephen Morris
Anstee is probably the most likely challenger if any; leader of Trafford Council, young at only 29, socially liberal Cameron-style conservative.
Can't see Nuttall doing well in Leigh, there are better seats in GM. The town itself is one of the largest without a rail line/metrolink which has been a bone of contentiob, but recently a very popular rapid bus route has been put in place. Much like in the Oldham by-election which had not long since had the Metrolink brought to the borough, can see an anti-Labour backlash.
Some more background on the Manchester mayoral contest would be useful from someone here in the know. Mr Eagles?
How big is the 'Greater Manchester' area and which outlying towns does it cover? How close to Warrington, Sheffield, Blackburn, Macclesfield etc does it come?
Who are the candidates? We know Mr Burnham has a good chance, but are there any well known local independents who might stand? Betfair's relatively illiquid market has Burnham layable at 1.25, is his chance really as tight as 1/4?
If Burnham stands and wins, and as expected Paul Nuttall stands in the Leigh by-election, will it be time for the return of Ed Balls to save the seat for Labour?
Lived in Manchester for a while. Greater Manchester is not that much smaller than Greater London in size and covers the boroughs of Wigan (where Leigh is), Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside (towns like Ashton and Stalybridge), Stockport, Trafford, Salford and Manchester. Most of the boroughs are a pretty sizable 2-300k, so the city itself doesn't dominate.
GM has a big North/South divide. The North (Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, most of Salford, but not Bury which is a bit better off) are relatively poor and still a bit post-industrial. The southern boroughs closest to Cheshire of Trafford and Stockport have far more wealthy areas the further out you go which vote Conservative/Lib Dem. Manchester itself has pockets of wealth in the centre and Didsbury etc combined with belts of deprived areas like Wythenshawe. Overall Labour wins the core, Tories and Lib dems on the periphery both north and south. One thing to consider is that Manchester (and to a lesser extent Salford) has a huge student population.
Candidates; Conservative: Sean Anstee Labour: Andy Burnham Lib Dems: Jane Brophy UKIP: Shneur Odze Greens: Deyika Nzeribe Eng Dems: Stephen Morris
Anstee is probably the most likely challenger if any; leader of Trafford Council, young at only 29, socially liberal Cameron-style conservative.
Can't see Nuttall doing well in Leigh, there are better seats in GM. The town itself is one of the largest without a rail line/metrolink which has been a bone of contentiob, but recently a very popular rapid bus route has been put in place. Much like in the Oldham by-election which had not long since had the Metrolink brought to the borough, can see an anti-Labour backlash.
There are many issues with that, one of the more important being that houses are just one part of the equation. You also need everything that builds a community, not just houses: shops, facilities, business premises, etc, etc. These are not cheap to build and need planning if they are to be effective. Then there are the other things such as roads, transport links etc.
It needs planning.
No, they don't need planning. Build the train line, people want to live near stations so they want to buy houses so people build them, shops want customers so they open them where people live, it works out fine. The reason these things appear hard is because you're used to the government planning them, which is the only way you can manage to get stupid outcomes like houses without shops.
LOL. No.
That's been tried many times and it rarely, if ever, works. The landowners (and then developers) make more money from housing, so they cram as many houses on as possible. And yes, that'll happen even under your proposed changes.
You end up with houses with no green areas nearby; shops that are either too big or too small for the clientele, and therefore fail. A road network that makes no sense and immediately does not cope with the planned traffic. No zoning, and no sensible structure.
S106 exists because councils need to apply the thumbscrews to get developers to even consider building these things. In old villages these things develop over the decades and centuries (sometimes poorly); in new developments they need to be planned.
I daresay we've got one or two experts on this topic on here ...
If house buyers don't value green spaces, they'll buy houses from developers who maximized for low cost and less green space. I don't see why you think everyone should have to obey your opinion about how much green space they should have.
If you're going to do this level of central planning there are other areas where it would make more sense. For example, the government could take control of people's food shopping, as it's objectively clear that people aren't choosing healthy diets, often with very serious health consequences.
They're not obeying my opinion. I don't see why people should be subjected to the sink estates that will develop if your 'opinion' becomes current.
A major problem is that we British have an 'ideal' vision of a house: one bedroom each (ideally with a spare); garage, front and back gardens, parking for at least two cars. Ideally detached, etc, etc. Near a good school and shops.
That's what many people dream of, and it's not necessarily healthy for our society. But how to change it?
"On the JAM’s there was a thought-provoking piece in the Guardian yesterday from Patrick Collinson."
His father earned £1300 pa in 1963? Very much a well-off middle class person then. The average wage then was between £8 and £10 a week. His salary was the equivalent of £25,000 now? Not the 10,000 pa equivalent most people would have lived on
But in the real world, foreign holidays were unknown, people rode bikes not cars, and kids' clothes were hand-me-downs not designer labels, no one had a phone and the Four Yorkshiremen sketch hadn't been written.
But this was the golden generation supposedly?
It's intriguing to note as well that if I plug those numbers into Measuring Worth (which is a fantastic website I use a lot for teaching) I come up with a real wage equivalent of £54k, not 25.
In other words, his point is somewhat undermined by the fact that while prices have rocketed, real wages have halved.
Surely that is his point?
I may have misunderstood but I thought his point was to compare his father's lifestyle with his daighter's, on the mistaken assumption they were earning equivalent wages. I was pointing out that he was wrong although it depends on exactly what measure you use.
However, as Pagan was pointing out on the last thread, £54k still ain't necessarily enough to live well in London. Although as others have discussed, that's an issue in the SE. Round here, it gets you a very nice lifestyle (because everyone else is flat broke).
A lot depends on how you compare wages. Inflation is not uniform. His father could afford more houses but his daughter can afford a television in every room. Wandering slightly further off-topic, the Prime Minister was paid £10,000 before the war, which would be around half a million today, so a lot of the headlines that X earns more than the prime minister are due to the PM's salary having dropped markedly. The Cabinet got half that, so even by that measure, today's PM is underpaid.
Cabinet members are actually paid much the same as the PM!
Sorry, yes they are now but it used to be £5,000 to the PM's £10,000 (and backbenchers weren't paid at all). I should have been clearer.
Backbenchers have been paid since before World War1.
Manchester is a strange city - it is mostly inner city with very few suburbs ( possibly Didsbury). In reality its natural suburbs are in Cheshire and Trafford. I used to live in Victoria Park where there were substantial mansions but were turned into flats or university housing.
Comments
Meanwhile in the last decade governments have borrowed a trillion quid and pumped it into the economy - much of that is what is filling the restaurants, bars and coffee shops.
GM has a big North/South divide. The North (Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham, most of Salford, but not Bury which is a bit better off) are relatively poor and still a bit post-industrial. The southern boroughs closest to Cheshire of Trafford and Stockport have far more wealthy areas the further out you go which vote Conservative/Lib Dem. Manchester itself has pockets of wealth in the centre and Didsbury etc combined with belts of deprived areas like Wythenshawe. Overall Labour wins the core, Tories and Lib dems on the periphery both north and south. One thing to consider is that Manchester (and to a lesser extent Salford) has a huge student population.
Candidates;
Conservative: Sean Anstee
Labour: Andy Burnham
Lib Dems: Jane Brophy
UKIP: Shneur Odze
Greens: Deyika Nzeribe
Eng Dems: Stephen Morris
Anstee is probably the most likely challenger if any; leader of Trafford Council, young at only 29, socially liberal Cameron-style conservative.
Can't see Nuttall doing well in Leigh, there are better seats in GM. The town itself is one of the largest without a rail line/metrolink which has been a bone of contentiob, but recently a very popular rapid bus route has been put in place. Much like in the Oldham by-election which had not long since had the Metrolink brought to the borough, can see an anti-Labour backlash.
If you're going to do this level of central planning there are other areas where it would make more sense. For example, the government could take control of people's food shopping, as it's objectively clear that people aren't choosing healthy diets, often with very serious health consequences.
All I can say is that they were in a position to know and I see no reason for them to have misled me.
I can't talk about the bigger picture as I simply don't know.
Next time I see the individual I will ask them for more detail of general salary levels.
Mind you, the person in question lives in a very nice house so they obviously doing well out of the education establishment themselves.
the carnage in the Middle East continues
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/11/least-26-dead-bomb-explodes-inside-coptic-christian-church-cairo/
You must be very brave to be a Christian (or other religion) in some of these muslim dominated countries.
NEW THREAD
A major problem is that we British have an 'ideal' vision of a house: one bedroom each (ideally with a spare); garage, front and back gardens, parking for at least two cars. Ideally detached, etc, etc. Near a good school and shops.
That's what many people dream of, and it's not necessarily healthy for our society. But how to change it?