On the latest Yougov Batley and Spen would be neck and neck but Kim Leadbetter will be a popular local candidate who could save Labour. The combined Tory and Brexit Party vote was less than the Labour vote in 2019 there unlike Hartlepool so much could depend too on whether the UKIP lite Heavy Woollens candidate stands again as has been suggested. If he does he will split the Leave vote that would otherwise potentially have gone Tory
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
My take on current situation: variants will continue to cause issues but our vaccines (both doses!) are effective as an additional layer of protection. We have to move away from harsh restrictions & lockdowns, to data-driven, precise outbreak management using science & logistics.
On the latest Yougov Batley and Spen would be neck and neck but Kim Leadbetter will be a popular local candidate who could save Labour. The combined Tory and Brexit Party vote was less than the Labour vote in 2019 there unlike Hartlepool so much could depend too on whether the UKIP lite Heavy Woollens candidate stands again as has been suggested. If he does he will split the Leave vote that would otherwise potentially have gone Tory
The Heavy Woollens sound like the punchline of a real crap, self-consciously Yorkshire, joke. Who are they?
Brexit Party can probably be added to the Heavy Woollens if they were effectively UKIP I suppose.
Smacks of desperation to me, choosing Jo Cox’s sister for the sympathy vote. But worth a try in the circumstances
Local candidate known locally for her community work in the area
It was very unlikely that she wasn't going to be the candidate once she threw her hat into the ring - especially as it means Kier can't be blamed for selection if things go wrong (which in this case they won't).
My take on current situation: variants will continue to cause issues but our vaccines (both doses!) are effective as an additional layer of protection. We have to move away from harsh restrictions & lockdowns, to data-driven, precise outbreak management using science & logistics.
Devi abandons the zerovidians.
The evidence is that currently the vaccines basically mean your chances of dying if fully vaccinated is next to none...and I presume if we start to weed out those who were already very frail, that might well account for the minimal deaths.
We need to move to a stage where we accept COVID is a thing, that unfortunately kills some people, just like lots of other diseases, but for the vast vast majority, we should be moving to a stage where there is little to fear.
Also, I am very confident that as new variants appear the science is now well on top of this (and improving all the time) and so at worse we will just have to keep popping down the village hall to get another jab.
One thing I remember from way back at the start of this, one of the worlds top experts in this field, a man with a long track record in AIDs research, said COVID is the equivalent of the high school drop out (to AIDs which is the honours student).
The reason being, that isn't to say it isn't bloody dangerous, but said at the time there are a number of weaknesses that vaccine makers can go after, not just the spike protein, so he was confident back then there would be vaccine(s) quite quickly.
On the latest Yougov Batley and Spen would be neck and neck but Kim Leadbetter will be a popular local candidate who could save Labour. The combined Tory and Brexit Party vote was less than the Labour vote in 2019 there unlike Hartlepool so much could depend too on whether the UKIP lite Heavy Woollens candidate stands again as has been suggested. If he does he will split the Leave vote that would otherwise potentially have gone Tory
The Heavy Woollens sound like the punchline of a real crap, self-consciously Yorkshire, joke. Who are they?
My take on current situation: variants will continue to cause issues but our vaccines (both doses!) are effective as an additional layer of protection. We have to move away from harsh restrictions & lockdowns, to data-driven, precise outbreak management using science & logistics.
Devi abandons the zerovidians.
The evidence is that currently the vaccines basically mean your chances of dying if fully vaccinated is next to none...and I presume if we start to weed out those who were already very frail, that might well account for the minimal deaths.
We need to move to a stage where we accept COVID is a thing, that unfortunately kills some people, just like lots of other diseases, but for the vast vast majority, we should be moving to a stage where there is little to fear.
The US view is also that although vaccinated people can become infected, if they are able to pass the virus on at all they do so at very low viral loads.
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
Human nature, hopefully I'm wrong - why not switch to lfts (And a PCR follow up if a positive LFT) for vaxxed close contact instead of instant isolation. They are freely available to anyone. 10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
She isn't just Jo Cox's sister though. She is local, a lecturer, and well-known in her own right for more in common. Good choice that goes way beyond a sympathy vote.
Brexit Party can probably be added to the Heavy Woollens if they were effectively UKIP I suppose.
Smacks of desperation to me, choosing Jo Cox’s sister for the sympathy vote. But worth a try in the circumstances
Local candidate known locally for her community work in the area
It was very unlikely that she wasn't going to be the candidate once she threw her hat into the ring - especially as it means Kier can't be blamed for selection if things go wrong (which in this case they won't).
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
Human nature, hopefully I'm wrong - why not switch to lfts (And a PCR follow up if a positive LFT) for vaxxed close contact instead of instant isolation. They are freely available to anyone. 10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
It was my gut instinct too.
My view is vaccination should be shown to be the way out of the now over the top restrictions. Vaccinated? Then no masks required. Vaccinated? Then its fine you came up as a contact of a positive test. Crack on lads. You're vaccinated.
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
Human nature, hopefully I'm wrong - why not switch to lfts (And a PCR follow up if a positive LFT) for vaxxed close contact instead of instant isolation. They are freely available to anyone. 10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
The simple solution is to not have the app and not do any tests ever two weeks post vaccination. I gather most of the country will follow that strategy.
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
Human nature, hopefully I'm wrong - why not switch to lfts (And a PCR follow up if a positive LFT) for vaxxed close contact instead of instant isolation. They are freely available to anyone. 10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
Quite frankly we need to be stiffening our sinews and ultimately ending isolations etc and saying "yes the virus will spread, yes you may pass on the disease, which is why the vaccine is available so get your jab."
Only reason for any limitations whatsoever is that the vaccine rollout isn't finished yet.
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
Human nature, hopefully I'm wrong - why not switch to lfts (And a PCR follow up if a positive LFT) for vaxxed close contact instead of instant isolation. They are freely available to anyone. 10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
The simple solution is to not have the app and not do any tests ever two weeks post vaccination. I gather most of the country will follow that strategy.
The Times do a write up on the Lab Theory. Says it needs to be properly investigated, not just written off as a conspiracy theory.
British media is so pathetically slow-on-the-uptake. They are a bit cowardly, TBH
It appeared to have taken them a day to discover that there were KGB on the Belarus flight!
Why aren't they all over the aliens-are-landing story? I mean, even if you briskly dismiss the aliens angle, there is STILL something extraordinary happening in plain sight, in elite intel/military circles in Washington. Today it is front page news in the Washington Post
Why won't they touch it? I know why: because they are all posh Oxbridge grads scared of looking like idiot proles-who-believe-in-ET. It's dismal and pathetic snobbery, tinged with cowardice
Many educated people also tend to believe that all and anything to do with alternative medicine is nonsense and not worth the attention, too, for instance, and axiomatically, missing any nuances. A excessively and pre-emptively simple attitude to these kind of topics has gradually become a marker of the educated over the last 200 years, not just here but in many places all over the world.
Pretty much all "Alternative Medicine" is woo.
The reason is that anything that works becomes "Medicine" rather than "Alternative Medicine"
Some serious signs of wetting the bed over the Indian variant from the Gov't. The messaging may discourage some younger people from bothering with vaccination, precisely the opposite of what we need.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but what makes you say that?
Human nature, hopefully I'm wrong - why not switch to lfts (And a PCR follow up if a positive LFT) for vaxxed close contact instead of instant isolation. They are freely available to anyone. 10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
Quite frankly we need to be stiffening our sinews and ultimately ending isolations etc and saying "yes the virus will spread, yes you may pass on the disease, which is why the vaccine is available so get your jab."
Only reason for any limitations whatsoever is that the vaccine rollout isn't finished yet.
I think fully vaccinated people will simply ignore it. I can already sense a lot of resistance from my parents to do more pointless lateral flow tests. My mum is talking about retiring early from her job at the school if they keep them for the next academic year.
She isn't just Jo Cox's sister though. She is local, a lecturer, and well-known in her own right for more in common. Good choice that goes way beyond a sympathy vote.
That sort of stuff will be true of many candidates. For her though it's a clear play for a sympathy vote.
And fair enough too. Respect to her, it makes opposition attack ads almost impossible too.
And quite frankly after the utterly inexplicable candidate selection in Hartlepool, going for a sympathy vote is miles better than a "why won't you stupid Brexiteers line up and vote for us" vote.
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
She isn't just Jo Cox's sister though. She is local, a lecturer, and well-known in her own right for more in common. Good choice that goes way beyond a sympathy vote.
That sort of stuff will be true of many candidates. For her though it's a clear play for a sympathy vote.
And fair enough too. Respect to her, it makes opposition attack ads almost impossible too.
And quite frankly after the utterly inexplicable candidate selection in Hartlepool, going for a sympathy vote is miles better than a "why won't you stupid Brexiteers line up and vote for us" vote.
I'm always in favour of a local candidate whatever the Party or location. Remember, a genuine local lecturer, just did better than dismally in Airdrie and Shotts. It may be the case for many candidates, but not often enough.
Missing man found dead inside Spanish dinosaur statue https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/24/missing-man-found-dead-inside-spanish-dinosaur-statue ...”We found the body of a man inside the leg of this dinosaur statue. It’s an accidental death; there was no violence. This person got inside the statue’s leg and got trapped. It looks as though he was trying to retrieve a mobile phone, which he’d dropped. It looks like he entered the statue head first and couldn’t get out.”...
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Pro Leave parties got over 50% of the 2019 vote, Leave got 55% was it (?) at the referendum, obv quite soon after the murder, so I don’t think the Tories can say it was all about Jo Cox if Labour hold.
It seems like a good move by Labour, esp the bending of the rules to get her in
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
While she may be a good candidate in her own right and from all I have heard she is. I fully expect labour to bugger this up by going heavy on the sympathy vote aspect. Voters don't like to feel they are being gimmicked into giving you there vote.
Far better to play her as just a normal candidate and let the local media bring up the sympathy thing with labour disavowing it and saying while true they are merely standing her as they think she would be an outstanding candidate with much to offer the area.
However I suspect they will instead go full focus on the sister aspect and that combined with the vocal twitterati who will predenounce anyone not voting for her as a knuckle dragging neanderthal racist who must sympathise with britain first and I fully expect labour to lose.
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
While she may be a good candidate in her own right and from all I have heard she is. I fully expect labour to bugger this up by going heavy on the sympathy vote aspect. Voters don't like to feel they are being gimmicked into giving you there vote.
Far better to play her as just a normal candidate and let the local media bring up the sympathy thing with labour disavowing it and saying while true they are merely standing her as they think she would be an outstanding candidate with much to offer the area.
However I suspect they will instead go full focus on the sister aspect and that combined with the vocal twitterati who will predenounce anyone not voting for her as a knuckle dragging neanderthal racist who must sympathise with britain first and I fully expect labour to lose.
Yes, I think they’d be best letting other people talk about Jo Cox rather than be seen to be forcing it on people. Her sister may be the best candidate in her own right anyway
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
It is quite concerning if the rest of the map is as bad as it is in Camden/Primrose Hill - and it is being used by HMG
It's like they've taken some very narrow data from maybe the 1970s and based it on THAT. I can't explain it otherwise
Glancing at Havering, it seems to be pretty accurate. But I really wouldn’t know
The map seems to have missed about 15-20 years of gentrification in central London. Maybe it is indeed better in less volatile areas
Yep. The Clapham Common side of Northcote Road appears to have the status of ghetto. Was a bit more scruffy than the other back in 1987. Wonder how the current residents will take to the levelling up agenda when their teens are offered apprenticeships at care homes?
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
If you rent a flat in those areas, you have money. Or you are a subsidised student at a fine university. Again, probably not poor
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having issues correctly mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
That 50-foot ceiling looks like it might be expensive to heat.
It shows a pool in the pictures but nothing in the description ? If I'm spending £11.5 million on a swanky flat it better have it's own pool and not some "access to private facilities" for the whole block nonsense.
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
If you rent a flat in those areas, you have money. Or you are a subsidised student at a fine university. Again, probably not poor
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having problems mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
The Westminster map looks accurate to me.
Belgravia, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Bayswater, St Johns Wood, most of Marylebone all highly affluent.
North Paddington and much of Pimlico deprived.
Compare the map to voting patterns and its spot on.
How many people actually live in Covent Garden now anyway ?
She isn't just Jo Cox's sister though. She is local, a lecturer, and well-known in her own right for more in common. Good choice that goes way beyond a sympathy vote.
Quite amazing to think a woman candidate might have qualities of her own.
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Thank you Diane Abbott.
Who do you suggest? There's only one Richard Burgon.
Anyone but Starmer. Why you still backing that loser?
Andy Burnham when eligible
Anyone but Starmer? So you don't discount Burgon or his ilk. Well good luck with that. Given the choice between someone of Burgon's calibre, I'd even prefer Johnson, or Jenrick, or Williamson, and I can't bear any of them.
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
It's quite routine to waive that rule if the candidate is convincing (I've seen it at least six times at various levels), but in this case she was a former member who let it lapse after Jo's death when she was setting up a non-partisan charity. Doubt if it's a profitable line of attack.
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
If you rent a flat in those areas, you have money. Or you are a subsidised student at a fine university. Again, probably not poor
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having problems mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
The Westminster map looks accurate to me.
Belgravia, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Bayswater, St Johns Wood, most of Marylebone all highly affluent.
North Paddington and much of Pimlico deprived.
Compare the map to voting patterns and its spot on.
How many people actually live in Covent Garden now anyway ?
There are certainly some council flats there.
It's better in Westminster but still weird flaws. A large chunk of St John's Wood near Primrose Hill is "deprived". What, really? Compared to where?
Ditto... Whitehall. lol. And the Houses of Parliament. So they aren't fiddling their expenses after all
It will also be news to the inhabitants of Portland Place, W1, that they should be heading over to the foodbanks tomorrow
My guess is this map is based on old/skewed data - which has missed a lot of gentrification - and it is applied in a way that cannot compute unusual areas like central and inner London
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
It's quite routine to waive that rule if the candidate is convincing (I've seen it at least six times at various levels), but in this case she was a former member who let it lapse after Jo's death when she was setting up a non-partisan charity. Doubt if it's a profitable line of attack.
It would seem to be Starmer level nitpickingly petty to kick up a fuss about it, the Tories should just campaign positively
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
If you rent a flat in those areas, you have money. Or you are a subsidised student at a fine university. Again, probably not poor
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having problems mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
The Westminster map looks accurate to me.
Belgravia, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Bayswater, St Johns Wood, most of Marylebone all highly affluent.
North Paddington and much of Pimlico deprived.
Compare the map to voting patterns and its spot on.
How many people actually live in Covent Garden now anyway ?
There are certainly some council flats there.
It's better in Westminster but still weird flaws. A large chunk of St John's Wood near Primrose Hill is "deprived". What, really? Compared to where?
Ditto... Whitehall. lol. And the Houses of Parliament. So they aren't fiddling their expenses after all
It will also be news to the inhabitants of Portland Place, W1, that they should be heading over to the foodbanks tomorrow
My guess is this map is based on old/skewed data - which has missed a lot of gentrification - and it is applied in a way that cannot compute unusual areas like central and inner London
Are you sure you're not missing any council flats ?
They can be in some surprising places in central London, behind posh looking streets.
I noticed that Delancey Street is in a below average area - I'm sure SeanT would prefer that as it gives a George Orwell 'hungry writer living in a garret' image.
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
If you rent a flat in those areas, you have money. Or you are a subsidised student at a fine university. Again, probably not poor
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having problems mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
The Westminster map looks accurate to me.
Belgravia, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Bayswater, St Johns Wood, most of Marylebone all highly affluent.
North Paddington and much of Pimlico deprived.
Compare the map to voting patterns and its spot on.
How many people actually live in Covent Garden now anyway ?
There are certainly some council flats there.
It's better in Westminster but still weird flaws. A large chunk of St John's Wood near Primrose Hill is "deprived". What, really? Compared to where?
Ditto... Whitehall. lol. And the Houses of Parliament. So they aren't fiddling their expenses after all
It will also be news to the inhabitants of Portland Place, W1, that they should be heading over to the foodbanks tomorrow
My guess is this map is based on old/skewed data - which has missed a lot of gentrification - and it is applied in a way that cannot compute unusual areas like central and inner London
Are you sure you're not missing any council flats ?
They can be in some surprising places in central London, behind posh looking streets.
I noticed that Delancey Street is in a below average area - I'm sure SeanT would prefer that as it gives a George Orwell 'hungry writer living in a garret' image.
AVENUE ROAD, ST JOHN'S WOOD, IS "DEPRIVED"
Come on, let's get together and help them. Start some kind of grass roots PB campaign to feed them. Reach out, offer soup, blankets, anything, before it is all too horribly late
1/ Today we ( @ONS ) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
I live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
Large parts of Soho, Fitzrovia and Covent Garden are also seriously deprived, apparently, as is nearly all of Islington, Clerkenwell, most of Highbury; and King's Cross/St Pancras is the pits: raging red with deprivation, and basically wall to wall hookers and crack dens...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
If you rent a flat in those areas, you have money. Or you are a subsidised student at a fine university. Again, probably not poor
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having problems mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
The Westminster map looks accurate to me.
Belgravia, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Bayswater, St Johns Wood, most of Marylebone all highly affluent.
North Paddington and much of Pimlico deprived.
Compare the map to voting patterns and its spot on.
How many people actually live in Covent Garden now anyway ?
There are certainly some council flats there.
It's better in Westminster but still weird flaws. A large chunk of St John's Wood near Primrose Hill is "deprived". What, really? Compared to where?
Ditto... Whitehall. lol. And the Houses of Parliament. So they aren't fiddling their expenses after all
It will also be news to the inhabitants of Portland Place, W1, that they should be heading over to the foodbanks tomorrow
My guess is this map is based on old/skewed data - which has missed a lot of gentrification - and it is applied in a way that cannot compute unusual areas like central and inner London
Are you sure you're not missing any council flats ?
They can be in some surprising places in central London, behind posh looking streets.
I noticed that Delancey Street is in a below average area - I'm sure SeanT would prefer that as it gives a George Orwell 'hungry writer living in a garret' image.
AVENUE ROAD, ST JOHN'S WOOD, IS "DEPRIVED"
Come on, let's get together and help them. Start some kind of grass roots PB campaign to feed them. Reach out, offer soup, blankets, anything, before it is all too horribly late
Does anyone live in it though apart from some exploited Philippina ?
The posh houses of central London are notorious for being left empty for much of the year.
I've just received these recent pictures of the appalling squalor in Avenue Road, St John's Wood, London NW8.
It beggars belief, quite frankly, that in an advanced, wealthy country like the UK, let alone a world city like London, we tolerate this kind of deprivation. If we don't act soon, cholera and famine will stalk these sad, haunted, forgotten corners
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
Apparently many of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
All I did was say Starmer didn’t have what it takes, back when he was pretty new in the job. Are you saying events have proved me wrong?
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
I wasn't a three quidder.
But I do reckon SKS is a dud. I have no interest in moving him on. Labour can do that after the next election.
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
All I did was say Starmer didn’t have what it takes, back when he was pretty new in the job. Are you saying events have proved me wrong?
Apparently most of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
Bishop's Avenue is surreal. It has the worst pot-holes in the world because of all the underground development causing subsidence (ten storey down swimming pools etc). Yes, lots of houses are left to rot by arrested sheikhs and oligarchs. The architecture gets crazier every year. There has been lots of new building in the last two or three years, despite Brexit/Covid - I guess big houses with big gardens are still or more popular?
I wouldn't really like to live there. You can't walk anywhere
Avenue Road has some similarities (a few properties are just as vulgar) but it is much much nicer. You can walk to Regents Park/Primrose Hill in 5 minutes, you can walk to Lords, shops, restaurants, you are just a few minutes from Marylebone High Street and central London.
All the opulent houses are very much occupied year-round, quite a few are ambassadorial I believe (you see armed guards). A big house there would be a grand place to live. Almost perfect, if you want a big house in central London. Hence the prices
Apparently many of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
I've just received these recent pictures of the appalling squalor in Avenue Road, St John's Wood, London NW8.
It beggars belief, quite frankly, that in an advanced, wealthy country like the UK, let alone a world city like London, we tolerate this kind of deprivation. If we don't act soon, cholera and famine will stalk these sad, haunted, forgotten corners
Interesting vid about some of London's biggest mansions.
Apparently many of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
The vid I posted seems to indicate the Saudis invest in security to keep squatters and so forth out whilst not giving a shit about any sort of maintenance let alone living in the houses.
It is one of the most expensive streets in the world
The map, in large chunks of central London, is bullshit
Is the map detailed to a street level, or is it down to eg wards?
If its the latter there can be very nice houses within a stones throw of some very deprived ones.
No, it's not wards. Just checked. In London they are attempting to drill down to street level. And failing
Looking on Google Maps it seems that some of Avenue Road is really opulent looking housing, while some of it is distinctly ordinary looking flats. No idea what the flats go for or are like.
Could that be screwing with the data? The flats on the same road outweighing the housing?
I've just received these recent pictures of the appalling squalor in Avenue Road, St John's Wood, London NW8.
It beggars belief, quite frankly, that in an advanced, wealthy country like the UK, let alone a world city like London, we tolerate this kind of deprivation. If we don't act soon, cholera and famine will stalk these sad, haunted, forgotten corners
Interesting vid about some of London's biggest mansions.
Makes sense. A couple of years ago it reached peak dereliction. But since then there has been rapid rebuilding (no idea why, billionaire Hong Kongers fleeing?). The entire road (which is very long) is a wall of contractors and building sites and skips and large builders' vans blocking irritated drivers (me)
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
All I did was say Starmer didn’t have what it takes, back when he was pretty new in the job. Are you saying events have proved me wrong?
He has been a disappointnent, not least because I have seen almost nil oppposing from him as the LOTO. Nonetheless he is still head and shoulders better than the dreadfully deluded and dangerous oik that preceded him.
It is one of the most expensive streets in the world
The map, in large chunks of central London, is bullshit
Is the map detailed to a street level, or is it down to eg wards?
If its the latter there can be very nice houses within a stones throw of some very deprived ones.
No, it's not wards. Just checked. In London they are attempting to drill down to street level. And failing
Looking on Google Maps it seems that some of Avenue Road is really opulent looking housing, while some of it is distinctly ordinary looking flats. No idea what the flats go for or are like.
Could that be screwing with the data? The flats on the same road outweighing the housing?
Most of it is opulent housing. Some blocks of flats.
Let's have a look. Here. Even an ugly flat in a 30s mansion block is.... £1.7m
Perhaps there is a tiny cluster of council owned crack-houses, near Swiss Cottage, that no one has ever seen, but I doubt it. The map fails in central London, for whatever reasons
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
All I did was say Starmer didn’t have what it takes, back when he was pretty new in the job. Are you saying events have proved me wrong?
You called it well and early.
If he's so bad, why not big him up, and laugh heartily when the gorgeous and magnificent Johnson crushes the evil blubberer in GE2024?
Apparently most of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
Bishop's Avenue is surreal. It has the worst pot-holes in the world because of all the underground development causing subsidence (ten storey down swimming pools etc). Yes, lots of houses are left to rot by arrested sheikhs and oligarchs. The architecture gets crazier every year. There has been lots of new building in the last two or three years, despite Brexit/Covid - I guess big houses with big gardens are still or more popular?
I wouldn't really like to live there. You can't walk anywhere
Avenue Road has some similarities (a few properties are just as vulgar) but it is much much nicer. You can walk to Regents Park/Primrose Hill in 5 minutes, you can walk to Lords, shops, restaurants, you are just a few minutes from Marylebone High Street and central London.
All the opulent houses are very much occupied year-round, quite a few are ambassadorial I believe (you see armed guards). A big house there would be a grand place to live. Almost perfect, if you want a big house in central London. Hence the prices
There's definitely council flats in some of the nearby streets though.
A big block of them on Queens Terrace for example and looks like others along Wellington Road and Woronzow Road.
I've just received these recent pictures of the appalling squalor in Avenue Road, St John's Wood, London NW8.
It beggars belief, quite frankly, that in an advanced, wealthy country like the UK, let alone a world city like London, we tolerate this kind of deprivation. If we don't act soon, cholera and famine will stalk these sad, haunted, forgotten corners
Interesting vid about some of London's biggest mansions.
Makes sense. A couple of years ago it reached peak dereliction. But since then there has been rapid rebuilding (no idea why, billionaire Hong Kongers fleeing?). The entire road (which is very long) is a wall of contractors and building sites and skips and large builders' vans blocking irritated drivers (me)
Hopefully the new mansion owners will be better than the saudis.
Apparently most of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
Bishop's Avenue is surreal. It has the worst pot-holes in the world because of all the underground development causing subsidence (ten storey down swimming pools etc). Yes, lots of houses are left to rot by arrested sheikhs and oligarchs. The architecture gets crazier every year. There has been lots of new building in the last two or three years, despite Brexit/Covid - I guess big houses with big gardens are still or more popular?
I wouldn't really like to live there. You can't walk anywhere
Avenue Road has some similarities (a few properties are just as vulgar) but it is much much nicer. You can walk to Regents Park/Primrose Hill in 5 minutes, you can walk to Lords, shops, restaurants, you are just a few minutes from Marylebone High Street and central London.
All the opulent houses are very much occupied year-round, quite a few are ambassadorial I believe (you see armed guards). A big house there would be a grand place to live. Almost perfect, if you want a big house in central London. Hence the prices
There's definitely council flats in some of the nearby streets though.
A big block of them on Queens Terrace for example and looks like others along Wellington Road and Woronzow Road.
Trust me, I know this area really well. Used to live very nearby, now live about 15 minutes walk away
I have a few regular urban walks that I do of an evening, when I don't go down the gym. One takes me around this part of St John's Wood, partly because it is so pleasant, affluent and leafy (and right by Primrose Hill)
If the ONS thinks this is "deprived" then fuck knows what the RICH places look like. They must be carved from crystal
Apparently most of the properties in Bishop's Avenue aren't actually inhabited and some of them aren't in a particularly good state, They're just used as property investments. This article is from 2014 but I doubt much has changed.
Bishop's Avenue is surreal. It has the worst pot-holes in the world because of all the underground development causing subsidence (ten storey down swimming pools etc). Yes, lots of houses are left to rot by arrested sheikhs and oligarchs. The architecture gets crazier every year. There has been lots of new building in the last two or three years, despite Brexit/Covid - I guess big houses with big gardens are still or more popular?
I wouldn't really like to live there. You can't walk anywhere
Avenue Road has some similarities (a few properties are just as vulgar) but it is much much nicer. You can walk to Regents Park/Primrose Hill in 5 minutes, you can walk to Lords, shops, restaurants, you are just a few minutes from Marylebone High Street and central London.
All the opulent houses are very much occupied year-round, quite a few are ambassadorial I believe (you see armed guards). A big house there would be a grand place to live. Almost perfect, if you want a big house in central London. Hence the prices
There's definitely council flats in some of the nearby streets though.
A big block of them on Queens Terrace for example and looks like others along Wellington Road and Woronzow Road.
There's a big council estate off Townshend Road.
As is often the case in central London the grand houses are on the main roads and the council estates are hidden away.
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Should we Tories cheer on the sympathy vote then.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
"All we are saying is give Keith a chance"
I am not saying Starmer is a shoo in for next PM by any stretch of the imagination, but he is more electable than Corbyn ever was, despite current polling.
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
All I did was say Starmer didn’t have what it takes, back when he was pretty new in the job. Are you saying events have proved me wrong?
You called it well and early.
If he's so bad, why not big him up, and laugh heartily when the gorgeous and magnificent Johnson crushes the evil blubberer in GE2024?
Because I'm here to have honest conversation and discussions of politics as a hobby and I highly doubt anyone in the grand scheme of things pays the slightest bit of attention to what I write.
It certainly makes little sense to see Batley & Spen as a Red Wall seat given that it was Tory -held 1983 - 1997 but which the party failed to win in 2019. FPT. The latest Redfield and Wilton poll implies little change over the last month. Their 26th April poll had the Tories on 44% with Labour on 34%. Both parties have now dropped a point to show an unchanged 10% Tory lead.
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
It does rather smack of desperation.
SKS knows its over if Lab lose Batley & Spen
Thank you Diane Abbott.
Who do you suggest? There's only one Richard Burgon.
Anyone but Starmer. Why you still backing that loser?
Andy Burnham when eligible
Anyone but Starmer? So you don't discount Burgon or his ilk. Well good luck with that. Given the choice between someone of Burgon's calibre, I'd even prefer Johnson, or Jenrick, or Williamson, and I can't bear any of them.
If you have your way, Labour are finished.
My way is Burnham.
Why do you keep saying i want Burton. I have never wanted Burgon.
Comments
Smacks of desperation to me, choosing Jo Cox’s sister for the sympathy vote. But worth a try in the circumstances
Conservative 4/7
Labour 6/4
100/1 bar.
My take on current situation: variants will continue to cause issues but our vaccines (both doses!) are effective as an additional layer of protection. We have to move away from harsh restrictions & lockdowns, to data-driven, precise outbreak management using science & logistics.
Devi abandons the zerovidians.
There were allegations of sexual abuse and apologies for 'mistakes'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/18/brendan-cox-resigns-from-charities-amid-sexual-assault-claims
It was very unlikely that she wasn't going to be the candidate once she threw her hat into the ring - especially as it means Kier can't be blamed for selection if things go wrong (which in this case they won't).
Labour Party Rule must have been a Member for 12 Consecutive months prior to being a Candidate
Labour Candidate has been a member for less than 5 weeks
I think Labour still loses but will do better with this Candidate
We need to move to a stage where we accept COVID is a thing, that unfortunately kills some people, just like lots of other diseases, but for the vast vast majority, we should be moving to a stage where there is little to fear.
Also, I am very confident that as new variants appear the science is now well on top of this (and improving all the time) and so at worse we will just have to keep popping down the village hall to get another jab.
One thing I remember from way back at the start of this, one of the worlds top experts in this field, a man with a long track record in AIDs research, said COVID is the equivalent of the high school drop out (to AIDs which is the honours student).
The reason being, that isn't to say it isn't bloody dangerous, but said at the time there are a number of weaknesses that vaccine makers can go after, not just the spike protein, so he was confident back then there would be vaccine(s) quite quickly.
10 days of isolation isn't just taking away people's leisure, those that can't work from home have real cash that they sorely need not in their pocket.
Borders abbeys well worth visiting, are are Dawyck Botanic Gardens.
https://twitter.com/bothness/status/1396746574638862337?s=20
1/ Today we (
@ONS
) released the second of two #scrollytelling #dataviz pieces in a series on economic inequality. This second article explores income disparities in #England at a neighbourhood level https://ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1371/
Excellent....
Except that, when it comes to my corner of Camden it is total bollocks. Here, a 2 bed flat costs £800,000, and a house £1.5m or so. Most of the houses are now privately owned, there are still some council flats, in the period houses, but not many. A couple of new blocks have replaced old garages etc, all are pricey, and private
There are some rentals, but they are expensive and get wealthy students and young City workers in the main
And this tiny corner is labelled as "quite deprived"?!
Perhaps this is a unique anomaly - but if it is true for the rest of the map then I really hope the government is not relying on this data. Bizarre
She is local, a lecturer, and well-known in her own right for more in common.
Good choice that goes way beyond a sympathy vote.
My view is vaccination should be shown to be the way out of the now over the top restrictions. Vaccinated? Then no masks required. Vaccinated? Then its fine you came up as a contact of a positive test. Crack on lads. You're vaccinated.
Only reason for any limitations whatsoever is that the vaccine rollout isn't finished yet.
And fair enough too. Respect to her, it makes opposition attack ads almost impossible too.
And quite frankly after the utterly inexplicable candidate selection in Hartlepool, going for a sympathy vote is miles better than a "why won't you stupid Brexiteers line up and vote for us" vote.
lol
I've just noticed that the ONS has the *western* side of Chalcot Square, in Primrose Hill, marked as "definitely more deprived"
A house for sale on Chalcot Square (the sides do not differ):
https://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/details/58388496/?search_identifier=c5a6d3b3399ef0ed20f156cb759d8b07
£.5.5 million
Is the rest of the map equally as bad?
I'm thinking Labour Hold, thanks to the choice of candidate.
Night all.
Give Sympathy to keep Keith in place too.
its an interesting metric, but not how I would normally think of as deprivation as such.
It's like they've taken some very narrow data from maybe the 1970s and based it on THAT. I can't explain it otherwise
Remember, a genuine local lecturer, just did better than dismally in Airdrie and Shotts.
It may be the case for many candidates, but not often enough.
Missing man found dead inside Spanish dinosaur statue
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/24/missing-man-found-dead-inside-spanish-dinosaur-statue
...”We found the body of a man inside the leg of this dinosaur statue. It’s an accidental death; there was no violence. This person got inside the statue’s leg and got trapped. It looks as though he was trying to retrieve a mobile phone, which he’d dropped. It looks like he entered the statue head first and couldn’t get out.”...
This is going to come as shocking news to a lot of London estate agents
"St Pancras Chambers
3 bed Penthouse
Guide Price
£11,500,000"
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
It seems like a good move by Labour, esp the bending of the rules to get her in
Who do you suggest? There's only one Richard Burgon.
St Pancras is indeed magnificent. But.... the most revered gothic building in the world?
A couple of dozen European cathedrals, from Notre Dame to Koln, from Salisbury to Chartres, from York Minster to Milan, say Hi
Perhaps we can all club together and send him a food parcel. Must be tough down there
Far better to play her as just a normal candidate and let the local media bring up the sympathy thing with labour disavowing it and saying while true they are merely standing her as they think she would be an outstanding candidate with much to offer the area.
However I suspect they will instead go full focus on the sister aspect and that combined with the vocal twitterati who will predenounce anyone not voting for her as a knuckle dragging neanderthal racist who must sympathise with britain first and I fully expect labour to lose.
Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
Which possibly makes London real estate look cheap.
Was a bit more scruffy than the other back in 1987.
Wonder how the current residents will take to the levelling up agenda when their teens are offered apprenticeships at care homes?
They've got the maps very accurate for areas in Yorkshire and the East Midlands.
There aren't many council flats left in these areas, but there are some
It is just nuts to call these areas "deprived". Covent Garden? Fitzrovia??
To be charitable, it might just be a London problem: perhaps they are having issues correctly mapping gentrification. Which is why I asked if other areas around England were mapped better
Andy Burnham when eligible
I only hope the meals-on-wheels people can reach him in time
If I'm spending £11.5 million on a swanky flat it better have it's own pool and not some "access to private facilities" for the whole block nonsense.
It is empty.
Belgravia, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Bayswater, St Johns Wood, most of Marylebone all highly affluent.
North Paddington and much of Pimlico deprived.
Compare the map to voting patterns and its spot on.
How many people actually live in Covent Garden now anyway ?
There are certainly some council flats there.
If you have your way, Labour are finished.
Ditto... Whitehall. lol. And the Houses of Parliament. So they aren't fiddling their expenses after all
It will also be news to the inhabitants of Portland Place, W1, that they should be heading over to the foodbanks tomorrow
My guess is this map is based on old/skewed data - which has missed a lot of gentrification - and it is applied in a way that cannot compute unusual areas like central and inner London
For non-London-based PB-ers, here is a house for sale on Avenue Road
https://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/details/58381041/?search_identifier=069f04ea5984bdf5852705c8f1cf3785
£25 MILLION
It is one of the most expensive streets in the world
The map, in large chunks of central London, is bullshit
They can be in some surprising places in central London, behind posh looking streets.
I noticed that Delancey Street is in a below average area - I'm sure SeanT would prefer that as it gives a George Orwell 'hungry writer living in a garret' image.
AVENUE ROAD, ST JOHN'S WOOD, IS "DEPRIVED"
Come on, let's get together and help them. Start some kind of grass roots PB campaign to feed them. Reach out, offer soup, blankets, anything, before it is all too horribly late
Con + bxp + ind 49%
Which makes this a real nail biter.
In the favor of the government: vaccines + Brexit
Against: this is not as brexity a place as Hartlepool (although still pretty Brexity)
I'd probably make the Conservatives narrow favorites, but only because they have the big 'mo.
If its the latter there can be very nice houses within a stones throw of some very deprived ones.
The posh houses of central London are notorious for being left empty for much of the year.
It beggars belief, quite frankly, that in an advanced, wealthy country like the UK, let alone a world city like London, we tolerate this kind of deprivation. If we don't act soon, cholera and famine will stalk these sad, haunted, forgotten corners
You are in league with the likes of Blue, Casino, Urquart, Mark, D and others who wisely invested their £3 to elect Corbyn as leader and deliver Johnson with an 80 seat majority (and Isam who is desperate to confirm his PMs have to be charismatic theory). These people are now desperate for Starmer to be replaced and apparantly, simply because he reminds them of a dull 1990s Chris Barrie sitcom character. Hmmm, something doesn't smell right to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead
But I do reckon SKS is a dud. I have no interest in moving him on. Labour can do that after the next election.
I wouldn't really like to live there. You can't walk anywhere
Avenue Road has some similarities (a few properties are just as vulgar) but it is much much nicer. You can walk to Regents Park/Primrose Hill in 5 minutes, you can walk to Lords, shops, restaurants, you are just a few minutes from Marylebone High Street and central London.
All the opulent houses are very much occupied year-round, quite a few are ambassadorial I believe (you see armed guards). A big house there would be a grand place to live. Almost perfect, if you want a big house in central London. Hence the prices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0WEwAOS2nI&t=2s
Could that be screwing with the data? The flats on the same road outweighing the housing?
Makes sense. A couple of years ago it reached peak dereliction. But since then there has been rapid rebuilding (no idea why, billionaire Hong Kongers fleeing?). The entire road (which is very long) is a wall of contractors and building sites and skips and large builders' vans blocking irritated drivers (me)
Let's have a look. Here. Even an ugly flat in a 30s mansion block is.... £1.7m
https://www.primelocation.com/for-sale/details/57315610/?weekly_featured=1&utm_content=featured_listing
Deprived?
Perhaps there is a tiny cluster of council owned crack-houses, near Swiss Cottage, that no one has ever seen, but I doubt it. The map fails in central London, for whatever reasons
A big block of them on Queens Terrace for example and looks like others along Wellington Road and Woronzow Road.
I have a few regular urban walks that I do of an evening, when I don't go down the gym. One takes me around this part of St John's Wood, partly because it is so pleasant, affluent and leafy (and right by Primrose Hill)
If the ONS thinks this is "deprived" then fuck knows what the RICH places look like. They must be carved from crystal
And with that happy dream, goodnight PB
As is often the case in central London the grand houses are on the main roads and the council estates are hidden away.
FPT. The latest Redfield and Wilton poll implies little change over the last month. Their 26th April poll had the Tories on 44% with Labour on 34%. Both parties have now dropped a point to show an unchanged 10% Tory lead.
Why do you keep saying i want Burton.
I have never wanted Burgon.
I voted for Nandy and Rayner