People who support more “liberal” or left-leaning sides of debates on culture war issues such as Black Lives Matter and transgender rights, and on party politics and Brexit, are more likely to say they struggle to be friends with those who take the opposing point of view, according to a new study.
Conversely, people who support more “traditional” or right-leaning sides of these debates tend to be more incorrect on some key social realities, such as earning gaps between ethnic minority and white workers and how likely transgender people are to be victims of crime.
35% of Labour supporters say it would be hard to be friends with people who vote Conservative – five times the proportion of Conservative supporters (7%) who say the same about those who vote Labour.
Labour supporters are more likely to describe Conservatives as selfish (74% vs 30%), closed-minded (75% vs 59%) and hypocritical (67% vs 52%) than the reverse, and half as likely to see them as honest (25% vs 50%) than the other way around.
That fits v well with my ‘lived experience’. You can see it too on here, those who don’t post anymore are generally lefties/Remainers who cannot accept the post Referendum political world
You can also see it on here, those who lash out vitriolically at others and are generally angry are those Remainers who can't accept what has happened.
There's a lot of bitterness about. A shame really.
Oh dear, the old scratched record again. Move on Phil, move on! lol. I am beginning to think you and Isam need to keep justifying it to yourselves because you know it is a pointless crock of shit, (just like Bozo does)
I wonder what part of "those who lash out vitriolically at others and are generally angry" bitterness got your attention? 🤔
I've moved on. I've been talking about housing and other issues. Its people like you and @Scott_xP who keep choosing to bring the topic back to Europe. Why can't you let it go?
Us remainers are not moving on. Leaving our homeland a sitting duck to pain of more globalisation is the most irresponsible bit of politics ever.
People who support more “liberal” or left-leaning sides of debates on culture war issues such as Black Lives Matter and transgender rights, and on party politics and Brexit, are more likely to say they struggle to be friends with those who take the opposing point of view, according to a new study.
Conversely, people who support more “traditional” or right-leaning sides of these debates tend to be more incorrect on some key social realities, such as earning gaps between ethnic minority and white workers and how likely transgender people are to be victims of crime.
35% of Labour supporters say it would be hard to be friends with people who vote Conservative – five times the proportion of Conservative supporters (7%) who say the same about those who vote Labour.
Labour supporters are more likely to describe Conservatives as selfish (74% vs 30%), closed-minded (75% vs 59%) and hypocritical (67% vs 52%) than the reverse, and half as likely to see them as honest (25% vs 50%) than the other way around.
That fits v well with my ‘lived experience’. You can see it too on here, those who don’t post anymore are generally lefties/Remainers who cannot accept the post Referendum political world
You can also see it on here, those who lash out vitriolically at others and are generally angry are those Remainers who can't accept what has happened.
There's a lot of bitterness about. A shame really.
No-one's lashing out vitriolically at others, Philip, you sanctimonious gaslighting twat.
People who support more “liberal” or left-leaning sides of debates on culture war issues such as Black Lives Matter and transgender rights, and on party politics and Brexit, are more likely to say they struggle to be friends with those who take the opposing point of view, according to a new study.
Conversely, people who support more “traditional” or right-leaning sides of these debates tend to be more incorrect on some key social realities, such as earning gaps between ethnic minority and white workers and how likely transgender people are to be victims of crime.
35% of Labour supporters say it would be hard to be friends with people who vote Conservative – five times the proportion of Conservative supporters (7%) who say the same about those who vote Labour.
Labour supporters are more likely to describe Conservatives as selfish (74% vs 30%), closed-minded (75% vs 59%) and hypocritical (67% vs 52%) than the reverse, and half as likely to see them as honest (25% vs 50%) than the other way around.
That fits v well with my ‘lived experience’. You can see it too on here, those who don’t post anymore are generally lefties/Remainers who cannot accept the post Referendum political world
You can also see it on here, those who lash out vitriolically at others and are generally angry are those Remainers who can't accept what has happened.
There's a lot of bitterness about. A shame really.
It's people like you and Isam that can't move on. We were all very happy that Johnson's oven ready (for the microwave) deal ended the uncertainty.
It is your boy Frost who is claiming the EU 'done him up like a kipper'. Don't blame former-Remainers, we took your word that it was a 'great deal'.
The only ones whining on about Brexit are the PB Boris fanclub.
Ah sheer bliss and contentment put into words. Why can’t I be as happy? ☹️
It wasn't my fault, I didn't like it, I got over it.
Meanwhile you have your head in your hands crying "Brexit?- why did I do it?"
I feel happy seeing that, as I predicted the Greens would eat up the young Corbynite vote as soon as Starmer took over
We will revisit your happiness after the 23/24 election.
I am getting ever more confident on my prediction of labour having less seats after the next election
There will have to be several strong years of delivery by the incumbents for that to happen.
Feel free to save that post and say "I told you so". I think even if nothing changes next election labour might gain a seat or two in the south east but will lose 10 to 15 more redwall seats
Courageous long way out mid term current polls with jab effect prediction from you. Can you also say what the weather is going to be like late May 2024?
Sunny with intermittent showers
Exactly. Just like the weather forecasters use historical precedent, the best way to predict future elections is with historical precedent not current polling.
Johnson's government is reeling. It is all over the place.
May, acutely aware of the main chance as ever, senses it.
It won't be long before others do.
Could TMay return as PM? I notice she has been active in Chesham & Amersham
I wondered the same thing this morning.......!
She might well try. I am not sure May would succeed though. 2017 too bad a memory for many tories?
Could one bet on her trying and not succeeding ?
Just checked Oddscheker & she's not even a runner in their next PM market, while Ian Blackford, Piers Morgan & Cameron are!
What price would you back her at? & same question to you @MikeSmithson
Oh, an absolute outsider price no doubt, it just seems a bit weird that she’s not listed. Looking again the most popular bet aside from ‘other’ is Jeremy Corbyn.
I guess that’s because the market has been up since Boris took over as PM, so Jez was massive fav to be next PM for 5-6 months.
Yes, I did well laying that. GE17 was over-influencing the markets.
People who support more “liberal” or left-leaning sides of debates on culture war issues such as Black Lives Matter and transgender rights, and on party politics and Brexit, are more likely to say they struggle to be friends with those who take the opposing point of view, according to a new study.
Conversely, people who support more “traditional” or right-leaning sides of these debates tend to be more incorrect on some key social realities, such as earning gaps between ethnic minority and white workers and how likely transgender people are to be victims of crime.
35% of Labour supporters say it would be hard to be friends with people who vote Conservative – five times the proportion of Conservative supporters (7%) who say the same about those who vote Labour.
Labour supporters are more likely to describe Conservatives as selfish (74% vs 30%), closed-minded (75% vs 59%) and hypocritical (67% vs 52%) than the reverse, and half as likely to see them as honest (25% vs 50%) than the other way around.
That fits v well with my ‘lived experience’. You can see it too on here, those who don’t post anymore are generally lefties/Remainers who cannot accept the post Referendum political world
You can also see it on here, those who lash out vitriolically at others and are generally angry are those Remainers who can't accept what has happened.
There's a lot of bitterness about. A shame really.
It's people like you and Isam that can't move on. We were all very happy that Johnson's oven ready (for the microwave) deal ended the uncertainty.
It is your boy Frost who is claiming the EU 'done him up like a kipper'. Don't blame former-Remainers, we took your word that it was a 'great deal'.
The only ones whining on about Brexit are the PB Boris fanclub.
Oh don't talk crap.
Yes the deal that was done was a very good deal, best one available by far and its great that we've got it.
I've not seen Frost use the words "done up like a kipper" I don't believe it for a second. The deal was great but that's no reason we should implement the Protocol how the EU wants us to, which was not agreed - nor is it a reason not to invoke Article 16 which was agreed to be part of the deal.
And my brother and future sister in law would miss out on their wedding, potentially by two days.
EDIT: I now see the Independent:
"Boris Johnson is determined to lift the 30-person limit on weddings on 21 June, even if other lockdown restrictions remain in place, according to reports.
While the prime minister may decide to keep social distancing precautions remain in place, unlimited guest lists are set to be permitted, although wedding guests will still be required to wear masks when not eating and drinking, according to The Times"
It's the hope that gets you
As if the masks thing at weddings is enforceable! Just have a glass in your hand FFS. My wife was furious when she read that: “who would want people in masks at their wedding? And can we dance?”
The government needs to lift the wedding rules on 21 June and stop already with the petty little caveats. Enough.
My brother and SIL wouldn't mind.
Like most people they have a short ceremony, followed by a reception; in their case at the same venue.
Having guests wear masks at the ceremony is not a big deal. For the rest of the evening will be spent with a glass in hand (alcoholic or not)
Dancing?
In any case, the Times today again says weddings limit will be lifted come what may on 21 June. Which is good news.
So why not for christenings? Or funerals? Or birthday parties? Or barmitzvahs? Or other celebrations? There is absolutely no sense to any of this. It is arbitrary and capricious.
Because there is a huge Wedding industry that may collapse, I presume (not to mention the big wedding expectation)
The Christening/Barmitzvah industry is a much smaller affair..... And the funeral industry isn't really based around big funerals....
Well, there's a bloody great hospitality industry, even bigger than the wedding sector, which is being crucified by this "fuck business" government.
If there's a month's delay that's the summer season largely gone. The season when hospitality makes its money to survive the winter is March to September. It is already June and hospitality is still not open at full capacity. It has not been open at full capacity since March 24th last year. It has already had 3 winters in a row and now it looks as if it's going to get a 4th one. This is, frankly, unsurvivable.
My own work - which depends on the abandonment of social distancing - has also collapsed.
But yes all those with comfy jobs they can do from home while accumulating savings are fine with lockdown and restrictions continuing forever.
I am trying to get proof of my military service to apply for an Armed Forces railcard. There is simply no one at the relevant department and hasn't been since last March. No one. Not working from home, not long waiting times on the phone. Nothing. For 15 months whoever works at that department has been doing nothing. Probably quite happily.
Get @Kinabalu to vouch for you, or travel in uniform.
Would they accept a Statement of Truth, given the circs?
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Go move into a high rise yourself and then say that you raging hypocrite.
If I was still in my 20s or early 30s I would be very happy to live in a London high rise apartment, I now live surrounded by greenbelt and want to protect it
Why don't you buy it then? In a free market you can buy land and not develop it.
If the answer is its too expensive, then sorry but that's exactly what you're saying to people who want to buy homes today so how is your plight in a free market any worse than theirs today?
Houses are only very expensive because we have made it that way. It's not some natural occurrence beyond our control. It doesn't have to be.
Firstly, it is not really true that Green Belts have been expanded. They were a policy tool originating in the 1950s to limit the expansion of towns and cities as there was a worry about unplanned sprawl. Somehow, some places ended up with Green Belts, others didn't: it is somewhat random. As far as I know, most of them were designated in in the 1950's and 60's. Green Belts have subsequently become linked to ideals about towns and country and have taken on a mythology of their own. They certainly have a visual function in terms of seperating urban areas thus preserving their identity. However, because of the proximity to infrastructure and services, it is some of the best land to develop for housing in a productive and socially useful way. It is true that many of the problems to do with housing, particularly around the south east; and London in particular; could be addressed by way of developing this land; but this would undoubtedly result in a significant change to the urban and rural landscape, which needs to be considered carefully.
With regard to housing more generally, the idea that you should deregulate and let people build anything anywhere is one that can only be entertained if you are happy to have almost no countryside at all, because that is what would occur within a single generation: there would be large scale unplanned suburban sprawl of the type that the planning system was introduced in 1948 to stop from happening. This is along with many other potential adverse consequences, too many to list. The problem is that the demand for housing is endless, and the extent of developable land in this country is very limited. It is not at all like places like the USA or Scandinavia where there is a lot of land. Fortunately this won't happen, because people in England are fond of the Countryside. This is a seperate issue to Nimbyism, they shouldn't be confused.
(TBC)
Part of the problem is that people don't want to make obvious linkages. The Green Belt wasn't an issue (much) until the government decided that they wanted a bigger population.
Which leaves these options
- Stop the population growing - Everyone moves to flats which must get smaller, year by year - Fuck (some of) the Green Belt
The mystical brown fields sites will not solve the problem. Not at the current rates of population expansion.
The population isn't growing, UK births per mother is only 1.7 ie below the 2.1 required replacement rate.
It is increased immigration, divorces etc which has let to more demand. Tighten immigration controls further, encourage the traditional family and it would be less of an issue.
No reason why we cannot build more high rise flats in London and skyscrapers as befits a global city to reduce the pressure for increased housing in the greenbelt
Have you ever lived in a high rise? I have. It is awful. It is the equivalent of living like a fucking battery hen.
Depends, if you live in a high rise in central London with a view of the park and easy access to shops, cafes, nightlife etc as a young person it would be ideal.
Yep. People’s housing prefs change over time.
Where I think planning continues to err is in putting up high rises outside metro centres, often next to “transport hubs”.
The towers next to Woking Stn are hideous and don’t provide easy access to any sort of metropolitan life.
Completely agreed. Up here you get flats built (not especially high rise) as "affordable housing" within new housing estates far too often.
No reason for it whatsoever - and it makes absolutely no sense. Just use a bit more land and build more mews or semi detached housing.
There are effectively two or three different housing markets, and enlightened planning philosophy addresses each differently.
Greater London. Other metros. “Country”.
Although it is much better than it used to be, a lot of issues in this country just seem to be caused by shite development, in turn in response to various perversities in the system.
Agreed. Far too much of our regulations or principles are thought of by people who live in or commute to London and think that what works there applies to the rest of the nation.
In towns across the nation you can plot welfare, crime, economic development etc, etc, etc almost perfectly to housing density. The more dense the housing, the more the welfare dependancy, the more crime etc
In my ideal world in towns all new houses would be at least semi-detached with 2 off road parking spaces each.
Was with you until para 2. Density itself doesn’t increase crime etc. Again, Sth Ken and Notting Hill are not slums.
Where I think we might agree is that high rise is harder to make work for social housing; however even here there have been some v attractive developments in London over the last decade or so.
In fact, much of the best architecture where I live (Hackney, Islington) is via council-led densification of existing housing estates.
The demolition and rebuild of the Packington Estate, close to Angel tube, is an exemplar.
The problems with using high-rises for social accommodation, is that there’s no conscierge, security or cleaners employed there, and the residents care little for the communal areas.
Those commissioning them, need to incorporate these daily running costs into their budgets, because without them you get a horrible place where no-one wants to live.
(I live in a 20 storey tower, and it’s lovely!).
Yep agree.
There’s no point building social housing and leaving it to rot.
I also think that dedicated social housing towers etc should be avoided. Mixed use is healthier for a lot of reasons.
Comments
Meanwhile you have your head in your hands crying "Brexit?- why did I do it?"
Yes the deal that was done was a very good deal, best one available by far and its great that we've got it.
I've not seen Frost use the words "done up like a kipper" I don't believe it for a second. The deal was great but that's no reason we should implement the Protocol how the EU wants us to, which was not agreed - nor is it a reason not to invoke Article 16 which was agreed to be part of the deal.
Or a letter from a former Comamanding Officer?