Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Choosing Jo Cox’s sister might just be enough to save Labour’s bacon in Batley and Spen – politicalb

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited May 2021 in General
imageChoosing Jo Cox’s sister might just be enough to save Labour’s bacon in Batley and Spen – politicalbetting.com

Wahoooo! Go Kim. https://t.co/SW5eGjomcr

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,123
    I’ve had a tenner on labour.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,123
    Oh, first !!
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,258
    I agree
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    edited May 2021
    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
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,315
    Batley & Spen
    Conservative 4/7
    Labour 6/4
    100/1 bar.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited May 2021
    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
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    isam said:

    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

    Hopefully she has more about her than Tamsin Dunwoody did.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,939
    Pulpstar said:

    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?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,939
    @devisridhar

    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.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    What happened to Jo Cox's husband ?

    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
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,939
    HYUFD said:

    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?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,949
    isam said:

    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).
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846
    On Topic

    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
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2021

    @devisridhar

    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.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    Folk who find Farage a wet, liberal Remoaner.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    @devisridhar

    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.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,709

    I'm spending Thursday and Friday in the Scottish Borders. Can the PB brains trust recommend anything good to see that I might not have thought of?

    Trimontium. Scenic walk, lots of Roman history and sociable (although they seem to have cut out the tea, maybe for Covid reasons). They are running a walk this Thursday. https://www.trimontium.co.uk/events/trimiontium-guided-walk/

    Borders abbeys well worth visiting, are are Dawyck Botanic Gardens.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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


  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    edited May 2021
    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.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    eek said:

    isam said:

    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).
    Should be a close run thing I reckon.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,936
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,098

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,936
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
    Exactly.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846

    On Topic

    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
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,596
    Perhaps some joke-woke candidate could run as an Organic Fairtrade Cotton Independent?

    I'm thinking Labour Hold, thanks to the choice of candidate.

    Night all.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 live in the least deprived part of Havering, so it’s fine by me
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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?
    Are they measuring cost of living (including house prices) against average income, to calculate depravation?

    its an interesting metric, but not how I would normally think of as deprivation as such.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    BigRich said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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?
    Are they measuring cost of living (including house prices) against average income, to calculate depravation?

    its an interesting metric, but not how I would normally think of as deprivation as such.
    Well, I have to admit my corner of Camden, indeed my flat, would count as "extremely depraved" so they are not wrong on that
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846

    On Topic

    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"
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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?
    But don’t you have gang warfare every night?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952

    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,480
    Did anyone post this ?

    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.”...
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Charles said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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?
    But don’t you have gang warfare every night?
    Indeed I think he called for barricades as the only response available?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    edited May 2021
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    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
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    Some superb Realtor Hyperbole in that advert, describing St Pancras Station as "perhaps the most revered gothic building in the world"

    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
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2021
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    So what you are saying is London is a shit hole....
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
    ‘Morans I’ seems to be fuelling the controversy
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
    ‘Morans I’ seems to be fuelling the controversy
    We should ask Robert Smithson how he feels, stuck in his hovel in the "seriously deprived" slums of Covent Garden

    Perhaps we can all club together and send him a food parcel. Must be tough down there
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,843
    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.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    Remind us what home ownership levels are in those areas.

    Rather less than the number of council tenants as I remember.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
    ‘Morans I’ seems to be fuelling the controversy
    We should ask Robert Smithson how he feels, stuck in his hovel in the "seriously deprived" slums of Covent Garden

    Perhaps we can all club together and send him a food parcel. Must be tough down there
    I thought he was stuck in the slums of California?

    Which possibly makes London real estate look cheap.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911
    Pagan2 said:

    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
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,315
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    That 50-foot ceiling looks like it might be expensive to heat.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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?
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    BigRich said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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?
    Are they measuring cost of living (including house prices) against average income, to calculate depravation?

    its an interesting metric, but not how I would normally think of as deprivation as such.
    I don't think so.

    They've got the maps very accurate for areas in Yorkshire and the East Midlands.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    edited May 2021

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846

    On Topic

    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
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    That map looks accurate in my neck of the woods.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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
    ‘Morans I’ seems to be fuelling the controversy
    We should ask Robert Smithson how he feels, stuck in his hovel in the "seriously deprived" slums of Covent Garden

    Perhaps we can all club together and send him a food parcel. Must be tough down there
    I thought he was stuck in the slums of California?

    Which possibly makes London real estate look cheap.
    IIRC his London flat is on the eastern side of Shaftesbury Ave = Covent Garden

    I only hope the meals-on-wheels people can reach him in time
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952

    That map looks accurate in my neck of the woods.

    Seems to have Northumberland pretty accurate too.
    It is empty.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,008
    dixiedean said:

    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.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911

    On Topic

    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
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    I've just checked. The ONS map has the west side of Avenue Road, St John's Wood, marked as "deprived".

    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
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    edited May 2021

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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


  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    My back of the envelope is Lab + Green + LD 51%
    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.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    I've just checked. The ONS map has the west side of Avenue Road, St John's Wood, marked as "deprived".

    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

    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.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    edited May 2021
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Truly fascinating ONS analysis of "deprivation" street by street in England

    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



    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 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

    "St Pancras Chambers
    3 bed Penthouse

    Guide Price
    £11,500,000"



    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/88945540#/
    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    edited May 2021
    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



  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,536
    edited May 2021
    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,911

    On Topic

    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?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,098

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    isam said:

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    edited May 2021
    Andy_JS said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

    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
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    Andy_JS said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

    Don't we have squatters any more ?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002

    Leon said:

    I've just checked. The ONS map has the west side of Avenue Road, St John's Wood, marked as "deprived".

    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

    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
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0WEwAOS2nI&t=2s
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910

    Andy_JS said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

    Don't we have squatters any more ?
    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.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I've just checked. The ONS map has the west side of Avenue Road, St John's Wood, marked as "deprived".

    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

    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?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0WEwAOS2nI&t=2s
    Is that Bishop's Avenue?

    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)
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    edited May 2021
    .
    isam said:

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002
    edited May 2021

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I've just checked. The ONS map has the west side of Avenue Road, St John's Wood, marked as "deprived".

    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

    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

    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
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,126
    edited May 2021

    isam said:

    On Topic

    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?
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056
    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

    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.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0WEwAOS2nI&t=2s
    Is that Bishop's Avenue?

    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.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,002

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

    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

    And with that happy dream, goodnight PB
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,056

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/31/inside-london-billionaires-row-derelict-mansions-hampstead

    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.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    isam said:

    On Topic

    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.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,884
    edited May 2021
    Leon said:

    I've just checked. The ONS map has the west side of Avenue Road, St John's Wood, marked as "deprived".

    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

    Perhaps nobody who lives there declares any income?
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    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.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846

    On Topic

    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.

    I voted for Nandy and Rayner
This discussion has been closed.