That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
I was cheering May's social care proposals on pb.com.
I remember being furiously attacked by posters on the left & the right.
(It was the only good thing May came up with, although she presented it with her characteristic clumsiness).
Seemed like a good idea to me. I'm sure there would have been issues to iron out, but at least it was trying something, attempting to grapple with a major problem. It was a brave move (and I mean that as a compliment) to propose it during a GE, even one she had anticipated winning easily, rather than just sneak it out after the presumed win.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But a small number genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some (I believe a rather larger number) the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
Under 50 and double vaxxed chances of you catching COVID and ending up with covid is vanishingly small.
Not so good if you are an oldie. Although hard to tell as obviously figures distorted by unvaccinated (and 25th June case numbers were still very low).
My double jabbed 33 year old son (second jab in May) managed to catch it last week, and has had a couple of days of fever, sweats and severe lethargy. On day three he said that he felt as if he'd 'got his brain back' and had been in another place. Thankfully he does not appear to have passed it on to his double jabbed parents, or single jabbed sister, all of whom shared a smallish room with him for an hour the evening before he tested positive. Similarly, his double jabbed wife continues to test negative.
I shouldld correct / clarify...i meant to say vanishing small chance you contract it and end up in hospital if under 50.
Obviously with vaccine between 60-80% effective at stopping symptomic infection, plenty of people will get it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
Sheekeys just traded on its history. You'd always enjoy it but it was very expensive and there are only so many pounds you can add for opening an oyster and opening Champagne.
I genuinely don't know a good fish restaurant in London now though. (Apart from Japanese where there are many). Wheelers is just ok. (Just had a quick check about Sweetings - not that you'd have said they were good, but a fun place. Seems offline)
There are still plenty of good fish restaurants! Bentley's is excellent, as is Scott's. OK they are costly but if you want to splurge
Randall & Aubin is very nice in Soho. Wright Bros can be pretty fine (if they have reopened?)
I've heard great things of the Oystermen in WC2
As for Sheekeys, that's kinda my point. The main restaurant was way too expensive, and the food was average. The Atlantic Bar was more fun, much cheaper, with great oysters, and lovely fish stews etc
Now gone. *sad face*
Thanks for the suggestion of Ran&A - I'll try them. I never liked Atlantic Bar - too much of a braying shed.
There was some place on Haymarket (I think) that was a really simple cooker of fish (and very good at is), but the prices were about 10x what they should have been.
Given your username it seems remiss not to point out your near namesake, Omnino and its sister Omnino Brazilian BBQ are very much worth visits if they return if you also enjoy steak.
It was mostly (actually entirely) a fish thing, but I've not been, and I'd not spurn a good recommendation.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
Prevalence will eventually drop making it markedly less risky than it is now.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
Prevalence will eventually drop making it markedly less risky than it is now.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
I was cheering May's social care proposals on pb.com.
I remember being furiously attacked by posters on the left & the right.
(It was the only good thing May came up with, although she presented it with her characteristic clumsiness).
Seemed like a good idea to me. I'm sure there would have been issues to iron out, but at least it was trying something, attempting to grapple with a major problem. It was a brave move (and I mean that as a compliment) to propose it during a GE, even one she had anticipated winning easily, rather than just sneak it out after the presumed win.
Agreed, the reaction to it was probably even more depressing for good governance of the UK than Brexit.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
That’s almost like saying we are right back to square one on the board? What is it, 3.4 million most vulnerable who mustn’t get Covid, must be locked away behind ring of steel; for everyone else herd immunity, like Sweden and it’s scientific supporters suggested in the first place?
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
I was cheering May's social care proposals on pb.com.
I remember being furiously attacked by posters on the left & the right.
(It was the only good thing May came up with, although she presented it with her characteristic clumsiness).
Seemed like a good idea to me. I'm sure there would have been issues to iron out, but at least it was trying something, attempting to grapple with a major problem. It was a brave move (and I mean that as a compliment) to propose it during a GE, even one she had anticipated winning easily, rather than just sneak it out after the presumed win.
It was a brave move (and I mean that Yes, Minister style) to slip it out undebated during the general election.
It gave no time to debate the issue properly or have it considered on its merits, which has now salted the earth to make it tougher for anything like that to actually go through now.
Considering no election was scheduled yet it could have been floated either before the election, or after it, but to propose it during the election? That was stupid.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
Prevalence will eventually drop making it markedly less risky than it is now.
Eventually, but it could be a long time.
Which is why trying to prevent it spreading, post vaccines, is counter-productive.
Post-vaccines the faster it spreads, the sooner it burns out, the less need there is for the vulnerable to shield.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
That’s almost like saying we are right back to square one on the board? What is it, 3.4 million most vulnerable who mustn’t get Covid, must be locked away behind ring of steel; for everyone else herd immunity, like Sweden and it’s scientific supporters suggested in the first place?
Nothing like 3.4 million can't have the vaccines or won't develop protection from them.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
Prevalence will eventually drop making it markedly less risky than it is now.
Eventually, but it could be a long time.
Which is why trying to prevent it spreading, post vaccines, is counter-productive.
Post-vaccines the faster it spreads, the sooner it burns out, the less need there is for the vulnerable to shield.
I'm not sure that's right. Don't these things tend to die down and then suddenly flare up again, probably because of some new strain?
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
On the subject of restaurants, we're at the Sadler's Wells in early September, any recommendations nearby? We like Moro but it might be nice to try somewhere else.
I don’t know Islington, but Vecchio Parioli, a mile away in Barbican, is very good.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
How are you managing to get accepted?. You still working I guess - occupation qualifies you?
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
How are you managing to get accepted?. You still working I guess - occupation qualifies you?
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
I was cheering May's social care proposals on pb.com.
I remember being furiously attacked by posters on the left & the right.
(It was the only good thing May came up with, although she presented it with her characteristic clumsiness).
Seemed like a good idea to me. I'm sure there would have been issues to iron out, but at least it was trying something, attempting to grapple with a major problem. It was a brave move (and I mean that as a compliment) to propose it during a GE, even one she had anticipated winning easily, rather than just sneak it out after the presumed win.
It was a brave move (and I mean that Yes, Minister style) to slip it out undebated during the general election.
It gave no time to debate the issue properly or have it considered on its merits, which has now salted the earth to make it tougher for anything like that to actually go through now.
Considering no election was scheduled yet it could have been floated either before the election, or after it, but to propose it during the election? That was stupid.
It was politically stupid. But I admire that she wanted to do something about the problem and wanted it on the record so that, when she won, no one could say there was no mandate.
I certainly don't hold a politically stupid move by May responsible for the cowardice of others in not bringing something forward now. Leaders need to lead, not whinge about it being hard to do something which is meant to be hard.
If they want to only do easy things they shouldn't ask for the responsibility to govern 68m people.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
The main problem I had with it was the ever present one
Spend your life as a profligate with money not saving nor accumulating assets.....get taxpayers to fund your care
Do the right thing and save and set yourself up for old age.......you get it all taken as your reward if you need care.
This gives a perverse disincentive to bother saving in my view and there needs to be some balance here.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
How are you managing to get accepted?. You still working I guess - occupation qualifies you?
Married to a Yank.
I see. Marrying someone of another nationality is a wise move. I see that now.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
Is there enough work for a humble flint knapper there though?
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country. If you're looking for somewhere central, London isn't it.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
Is there enough work for a humble flint knapper there though?
Probably not. I'd likely have to come back to Blighty in the spring and summer to drum up butt plug orders
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
The places I’ve always found ridiculously inaccessible are East Surrey and Kent.
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
In the long run, there are only two ways you are going to cover the spiralling cost of replacing old people's knackered joints and wiping their arses when they become demented:
1. Get the elderly (directly, and/or via taxation of their estates after they die) to cover it 2. Get the young to foot the bill
No prizes for guessing who's paying.
Option one.
The most moderate and fair policy has to be option one?
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
Is there enough work for a humble flint knapper there though?
Probably not. I'd likely have to come back to Blighty in the spring and summer to drum up butt plug orders
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
That's all true, and the simplest answer is "we shouldn't start from here".
However, we have an acute and growing need for social care for the elderly, which won't come cheap.
The main financial asset most people have is their home, because the UK has spend four decades or so pumping money into house prices. If we don't tap into that to pay for social care, what other source of money are we going to use to pay for it?
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But a small number genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some (I believe a rather larger number) the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
You've only two choices in that situation: shield forever (and some people who are extremely frightened, extremely vulnerable or both will do that,) or accept that you've as much protection from this thing as you're ever likely to get and get out there and start living your life again.
Being immunocompromised, or suffering from some other ailment that puts you at much increased risk from Covid and many other such nasties, is - to adapt the old adage about ageing - not for wimps. I'm not personally afflicted by such conditions but have plenty of knowledge of them, through people I know who are close to me and about whom I care and worry.
I have two shielders in my life, both of whom are fortunate enough to at least have been able to have the vaccines, but also harbour concerns that they might not have been very effective for them. Both go out to work for at least part of the week; therefore, neither is spending their entire life sat at home. Most people in that position won't accept continuing to live under house arrest, and nor should they be expected to do so.
It was a brave move (and I mean that Yes, Minister style) to slip it out undebated during the general election.
It gave no time to debate the issue properly or have it considered on its merits, which has now salted the earth to make it tougher for anything like that to actually go through now.
Considering no election was scheduled yet it could have been floated either before the election, or after it, but to propose it during the election? That was stupid.
It was quite spectacularly inept, made even worse by the fact that she hadn't bothered to discuss it with Tory MPs and ministers properly, so the ground hadn't been prepared. Then she and her SPADs compounded the error by letting the opposition dominate the airwaves for days with their dishonest and cynical 'dementia tax' nonsense.
It was still a good proposal, but that was a hell of a shambolic bit of political presentation.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
How are you managing to get accepted?. You still working I guess - occupation qualifies you?
Married to a Yank.
I see. Marrying someone of another nationality is a wise move. I see that now.
Sort of an each way bet.
We’re hedging our bets. She’s applying for her U.K. citizenship simultaneously to me applying for my Green Card. So if it all goes pear shaped…this time 4 years ago many of the US Dems were piously talking about moving to Canada if Trump won, five years before that no one in their right mind would move to Ireland…so things can change very quickly indeed. In 2024 all the think pieces about the U.K. being an illiberal hellhole may switch across the Channel and the Atlantic as Trump 2 looms and a Le Pen is ensconced in the Elysee while the NYT eulogises the boring but safe PM Starmer.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
The main problem I had with it was the ever present one
Spend your life as a profligate with money not saving nor accumulating assets.....get taxpayers to fund your care
Do the right thing and save and set yourself up for old age.......you get it all taken as your reward if you need care.
This gives a perverse disincentive to bother saving in my view and there needs to be some balance here.
Yes, I get you, but you could say that about a lot of things.
For example my daughter (17) is working in a pub and cafe. Saving like a demon. When she leaves school and enters low paid employment (which she will) her savings will be in danger of making her ineligible for universal benefit because this new benefit is means-tested against savings whereas tax credits were not. The person next to her at work doing the same job but has not saved up anything, in effect, will get paid more for for doing the same job.
Re: the issue in point: is it right that the taxpayer has to fund care when the money could come from, in effect, the inheritances of the children? It is a tricky one because, as my post lays out, one surely has to consider the end-of-life wishes of the elderly parent.
We do have some balance already of course, cash and non-property assets go to pay care, main residence you keep.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But a small number genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some (I believe a rather larger number) the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
You've only two choices in that situation: shield forever (and some people who are extremely frightened, extremely vulnerable or both will do that,) or accept that you've as much protection from this thing as you're ever likely to get and get out there and start living your life again.
Being immunocompromised, or suffering from some other ailment that puts you at much increased risk from Covid and many other such nasties, is - to adapt the old adage about ageing - not for wimps. I'm not personally afflicted by such conditions but have plenty of knowledge of them, through people I know who are close to me and about whom I care and worry.
I have two shielders in my life, both of whom are fortunate enough to at least have been able to have the vaccines, but also harbour concerns that they might not have been very effective for them. Both go out to work for at least part of the week; therefore, neither is spending their entire life sat at home. Most people in that position won't accept continuing to live under house arrest, and nor should they be expected to do so.
Yes, it must be really difficult to be in that unhappy position.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
The places I’ve always found ridiculously inaccessible are East Surrey and Kent.
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
I remember some yeats ago complaining that HS2 wasn't linked to HS1 in any useful way - ie no prospect of you, me or anyone else north of Islington being able to take a direct train to somewhere civilised like Avignon without having to get out in London and walk between stations with your luggage, or take the Tube ditto, and I was sneered at here for being so demanding ...
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
Is there enough work for a humble flint knapper there though?
Probably not. I'd likely have to come back to Blighty in the spring and summer to drum up butt plug orders
Winter in Oz, summer in Europe. Tolerable
Their summer or ours?
You know what he means.
I spent 40 years thinking that Australian sailors were nutters because the Sydney to Hobart race is dangerous enough anyway, without holding it in midwinter. Then the lightbulb moment.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
The main problem I had with it was the ever present one
Spend your life as a profligate with money not saving nor accumulating assets.....get taxpayers to fund your care
Do the right thing and save and set yourself up for old age.......you get it all taken as your reward if you need care.
This gives a perverse disincentive to bother saving in my view and there needs to be some balance here.
Yes, I get you, but you could say that about a lot of things.
For example my daughter (17) is working in a pub and cafe. Saving like a demon. When she leaves school and enters low paid employment (which she will) her savings will be in danger of making her ineligible for universal benefit because this new benefit is means-tested against savings whereas tax credits were not. The person next to her at work doing the same job but has not saved up anything, in effect, will get paid more for for doing the same job.
Re: the issue in point: is it right that the taxpayer has to fund care when the money could come from, in effect, the inheritances of the children? It is a tricky one because, as my post lays out, one surely has to consider the end-of-life wishes of the elderly parent.
We do have some balance already of course, cash and non-property assets go to pay care, main residence you keep.
While I am in agreement that people should fund their own care, you really need to find a way of making them do so in a way that people can't just absolve themselves of by merely spending every penny they earn was the point I was trying to make. People will always see it as grossly unfair that they in effect get penalised for being a good citizen. I think if you addressed the issue of the won't pay people then people would be more amenable.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
The places I’ve always found ridiculously inaccessible are East Surrey and Kent.
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
It would certainly be very helpful if there were more rail links that allowed one to bypass the lengthy (and ludicrously expensive) journey into and back out of London.
There's meant to be one coming, linking Oxford and Cambridge, but it'll probably take so long to finish that everyone who might benefit from it who's over the age of about 20 will have died by the time the rotten thing finally opens.
It's typically the same story. Infrastructure projects in this country take almost an eternity to deliver and cost multiples of the already huge budgets initially projected for them. Look at the seemingly neverending Crossrail saga - although that's nothing compared to HS2. It wouldn't surprise me if it took until the middle of the century to get all the lines north of Birmingham completed.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped y s is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpes. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
I’m moving to downtown New Haven, CT. Have to say I’m quite looking forward to it.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
Is there enough work for a humble flint knapper there though?
Probably not. I'd likely have to come back to Blighty in the spring and summer to drum up butt plug orders
Winter in Oz, summer in Europe. Tolerable
Their summer or ours?
You know what he means.
I spent 40 years thinking that Australian sailors were nutters because the Sydney to Hobart race is dangerous enough anyway, without holding it in midwinter. Then the lightbulb moment.
Given the state of Boris' alphabet soup speech today about levelling up, I don't think there appear to be a lot of serious thinking going on in regards to if COVID will radically change work, especially in the big cities.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
The main problem I had with it was the ever present one
Spend your life as a profligate with money not saving nor accumulating assets.....get taxpayers to fund your care
Do the right thing and save and set yourself up for old age.......you get it all taken as your reward if you need care.
This gives a perverse disincentive to bother saving in my view and there needs to be some balance here.
Yes, I get you, but you could say that about a lot of things.
For example my daughter (17) is working in a pub and cafe. Saving like a demon. When she leaves school and enters low paid employment (which she will) her savings will be in danger of making her ineligible for universal benefit because this new benefit is means-tested against savings whereas tax credits were not. The person next to her at work doing the same job but has not saved up anything, in effect, will get paid more for for doing the same job.
Re: the issue in point: is it right that the taxpayer has to fund care when the money could come from, in effect, the inheritances of the children? It is a tricky one because, as my post lays out, one surely has to consider the end-of-life wishes of the elderly parent.
We do have some balance already of course, cash and non-property assets go to pay care, main residence you keep.
While I am in agreement that people should fund their own care, you really need to find a way of making them do so in a way that people can't just absolve themselves of by merely spending every penny they earn was the point I was trying to make. People will always see it as grossly unfair that they in effect get penalised for being a good citizen. I think if you addressed the issue of the won't pay people then people would be more amenable.
The smart thing to do is for the parents to sell the house and give the proceeds to their children a decade or so before they become poorly and then rent somewhere with the rent paid by the children. People rarely get round to doing this though. However if the house were brought in to the assessment earlier* then this is what people would do in droves.
* Worth pointing out that the house is only exempt in certain circumstances, the most common being that the spouse lives in it still. Spouse-in-the-house = untouchable.
Smart solicitors tell clients to write wills so that property is tenants in common (rather than joint tenants) and each half is willed separately. So when one parent dies their half of the property becomes immediately inherited and owned by the children (under trust) with the surviving spouse still entitled to live in 100% of the property even though they now only own 50% of the house. This means that if the surviving spouse ends up in a nursing home only half of the house, at most, is under threat.
You've only two choices in that situation: shield forever (and some people who are extremely frightened, extremely vulnerable or both will do that,) or accept that you've as much protection from this thing as you're ever likely to get and get out there and start living your life again.
I think that's perhaps ignoring possible middle paths -- given that covid seems to come in waves and also to have a seasonal component, one might choose to be more cautious or selective about one's activities at times when there are or are likely to be a lot of cases in the general population, and do more at times when there's less of it about. (Happily I am not personally in that extremely-vulnerable group so for me the prospect of doing that forever is largely hypothetical. But I am postponing doing some things I don't much feel the need to do, like going into the office, until after this wave has subsided, which I expect to happen within a month or two.)
Back in 1963, the US lost the USS Thresher with all hands. The nuclear submarine was believed to have sunk below crush death quickly.
However, recently-released documents indicate that at least one person may have been alive on the Thresher a day after the supposed sinking: another submarine detected several different attempts at communications, e.g. the rescue beacon, sonar pings, garbled radio and bashing on the hull.
It was a noisy acoustic environment with all the search ships around, but this went on for hours. It was also in very deep water, so if it was still mostly intact, it would have had to be above the crush depth.
This leads to many questions, considering up to now the story was that the US Navy heard implosion sounds a day earlier. It'll be interesting to see what else comes out. My bet would be the sounds heard were erroneous, the other submarine's crew being desperate to hear signs of their comrades and confusing different signals.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
Sheekeys just traded on its history. You'd always enjoy it but it was very expensive and there are only so many pounds you can add for opening an oyster and opening Champagne.
I genuinely don't know a good fish restaurant in London now though. (Apart from Japanese where there are many). Wheelers is just ok. (Just had a quick check about Sweetings - not that you'd have said they were good, but a fun place. Seems offline)
There are still plenty of good fish restaurants! Bentley's is excellent, as is Scott's. OK they are costly but if you want to splurge
Randall & Aubin is very nice in Soho. Wright Bros can be pretty fine (if they have reopened?)
I've heard great things of the Oystermen in WC2
As for Sheekeys, that's kinda my point. The main restaurant was way too expensive, and the food was average. The Atlantic Bar was more fun, much cheaper, with great oysters, and lovely fish stews etc
Now gone. *sad face*
We had a fantastic meal in the Oystermen pre-Covid but it's definitely a food first ambience 2nd experience - which suited us.
Out of London we had one of the best ever fish meals last week at the Crab House Cafe, Weymouth. They grow and harvest their own oysters from the Chesil Beach lagoon which is just in front of the cafe. Superb oysters of course but the whole meal was truly outstanding.
Again, be prepared: it's beach shack cafe ambience.
The crab shack in Weymouth is a lovely place, particularly in the sunshine.
Back in 1963, the US lost the USS Thresher with all hands. The nuclear submarine was believed to have sunk below crush death quickly.
However, recently-released documents indicate that at least one person may have been alive on the Thresher a day after the supposed sinking: another submarine detected several different attempts at communications, e.g. the rescue beacon, sonar pings, garbled radio and bashing on the hull.
It was a noisy acoustic environment with all the search ships around, but this went on for hours. It was also in very deep water, so if it was still mostly intact, it would have had to be above the crush depth.
This leads to many questions, considering up to now the story was that the US Navy heard implosion sounds a day earlier. It'll be interesting to see what else comes out. My bet would be the sounds heard were erroneous, the other submarine's crew being desperate to hear signs of their comrades and confusing different signals.
But it is intriguing. A US Navy cover-up?
At that depth, no survivors. No chance.
The implosion can clearly be seen on the sonar data that was released. The energy of the event in unmistakable - and it is a lot. Tons of TNT equivalent.
The state of the wreckage of the submarine is quite clear as to what happened.
In the history of underwater acoustic searches like that, there are tons of false reports.
I really think we are done in over Covid. My 'live and let live' elderly neighbour, who happily had dinner parties throughout the first lockdown, told me that she now thinks that masks and hand sanitiser should stay for good, as they help with stopping the flu.
I've been in group chats with university friends and they all seem to believe that the covid rules, including being pinged and covid passports should be accepted and any loss of civil liberties is acceptable on the basis that some people in society cannot police themselves.
They just don't engage with the fact that the hospitalisation rate is low, when I bring that up they move on to saying it is justifed by a need to protect the vulnerable, who are medically unable to take the vaccine. But the reality is that this category of people are also likely to be at risk from a whole load of other diseases going around and we don't undertake large scale societal interventions to protect them from these.
I don't know what the answer is, the only thing that keeps me sane is the fact that the kids parents at my sons school all refused one day to wear masks. But I think this pandemic has driven the country mad.
Unvaccinated over 50s in the UK are fucked right now tbh
Well their choice, they have all been offered both jabs now
For those who are just being silly, yes, it's their problem. But some genuinely can't have the vaccines for good medical reasons, and for some the vaccines won't work very well. I'm not sure what people in those situations can do other than lock themselves away indefinitely.
That’s almost like saying we are right back to square one on the board? What is it, 3.4 million most vulnerable who mustn’t get Covid, must be locked away behind ring of steel; for everyone else herd immunity, like Sweden and it’s scientific supporters suggested in the first place?
Nothing like 3.4 million can't have the vaccines or won't develop protection from them.
I agree. The 3.4 million the media keeps using could include those dosed up, but still vulnerable enough to getting it?
I must agree with those of you who favour Fixed Term Parliaments and I regret that PM will regain power to select election date.
I can see next GE being October 2023 (which avoids Lab and Con Conferences) or May 2024. Problem with either is that it cannot be too close to Scottish Independence Referendum. Also Boundary Changes legally happen July 2023 and 3 months may be too tight for MPs who must find another seat as their present seat disappears or significantly changes against their party. Toss up between October 2023 and May 2024.
A Sindyref rerun is unlikely to happen unless the SNP and Greens together win a majority of votes in the Holyrood election in 2026, or at least in the next British general election. The main way it could come about earlier is if a majority cast their votes for pro-indy parties in a Holyrood election that's called early. But that would require that SNP MSPs take their noses out of the trough and risk their seats - in a country which so far this century has voted 12 times out of 12 to stay in the Union.
Boris Johnson probably will come up with something to improve the Union. Personally I liked the idea of a motorway roundabout under the Isle of Man - not for its precise form but for the way of thinking.
I must agree with those of you who favour Fixed Term Parliaments and I regret that PM will regain power to select election date.
I can see next GE being October 2023 (which avoids Lab and Con Conferences) or May 2024. Problem with either is that it cannot be too close to Scottish Independence Referendum. Also Boundary Changes legally happen July 2023 and 3 months may be too tight for MPs who must find another seat as their present seat disappears or significantly changes against their party. Toss up between October 2023 and May 2024.
A Sindyref rerun is unlikely to happen unless the SNP and Greens together win a majority of votes in the Holyrood election in 2026, or at least in the next British general election. The main way it could come about earlier is if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in a Holyrood election that's called early. But that would require that SNP MSPs take their noses out of the trough and risk their seats - in a country which so far this century has voted 12 times out of 12 to stay in the Union.
The SNP and SGs already have the majority - so tht at is not the issue. Whether at Holyrood or the Scottish Westminster seats.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
That is both perfectly understandable and completely unsustainable.
Back in 1963, the US lost the USS Thresher with all hands. The nuclear submarine was believed to have sunk below crush death quickly.
However, recently-released documents indicate that at least one person may have been alive on the Thresher a day after the supposed sinking: another submarine detected several different attempts at communications, e.g. the rescue beacon, sonar pings, garbled radio and bashing on the hull.
It was a noisy acoustic environment with all the search ships around, but this went on for hours. It was also in very deep water, so if it was still mostly intact, it would have had to be above the crush depth.
This leads to many questions, considering up to now the story was that the US Navy heard implosion sounds a day earlier. It'll be interesting to see what else comes out. My bet would be the sounds heard were erroneous, the other submarine's crew being desperate to hear signs of their comrades and confusing different signals.
But it is intriguing. A US Navy cover-up?
At that depth, no survivors. No chance.
The implosion can clearly be seen on the sonar data that was released. The energy of the event in unmistakable - and it is a lot. Tons of TNT equivalent.
The state of the wreckage of the submarine is quite clear as to what happened.
In the history of underwater acoustic searches like that, there are tons of false reports.
Yep, if it was at that depth there was no hope. On the other hand, if the sonar data of the implosion was faked, either in full or temporally ...
I'm not ordinarily one for conspiracy theories, but this one's got me quite interested. In reality, chances are the Navy investigated and decided it was just operator error on the Seawolf.
On the other hand, Mr Jive Turkey seems quite het up about it, and he was a sonarman for a couple of decades (his channel is excellent, btw...)
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
The places I’ve always found ridiculously inaccessible are East Surrey and Kent.
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
I remember some yeats ago complaining that HS2 wasn't linked to HS1 in any useful way - ie no prospect of you, me or anyone else north of Islington being able to take a direct train to somewhere civilised like Avignon without having to get out in London and walk between stations with your luggage, or take the Tube ditto, and I was sneered at here for being so demanding ...
I really think we are done in over Covid. My 'live and let live' elderly neighbour, who happily had dinner parties throughout the first lockdown, told me that she now thinks that masks and hand sanitiser should stay for good, as they help with stopping the flu.
I've been in group chats with university friends and they all seem to believe that the covid rules, including being pinged and covid passports should be accepted and any loss of civil liberties is acceptable on the basis that some people in society cannot police themselves.
They just don't engage with the fact that the hospitalisation rate is low, when I bring that up they move on to saying it is justifed by a need to protect the vulnerable, who are medically unable to take the vaccine. But the reality is that this category of people are also likely to be at risk from a whole load of other diseases going around and we don't undertake large scale societal interventions to protect them from these.
I don't know what the answer is, the only thing that keeps me sane is the fact that the kids parents at my sons school all refused one day to wear masks. But I think this pandemic has driven the country mad.
@darkage You are clearly as pole-axed by this as I am.
I could see the writing on the wall as early as March last year. I wrote a header about it. At the time I thought that most people had not twigged the seriousness of the pandemic. All they were focused on was health and they failed to see that we have a new enduring risk in life. They gave no acknowledgement of liberties or the economy - i.e. the wider picture. I argued that making health and the NHS the-only-thing-that-matters was a mistake and the initial lockdown should not have been extended past the original 12 weeks. It was a brave piece to write at the time, but look where were are now.
Liberals have been caught in a pincer-movement between authoritarian rule-followers on the right and dystopian illiberals on the left. I think that more of the former can be turned than the latter, especially as fear tapers more and more. The latter have revealed that they never liked liberal democracy in the first place - particularly the liberal bit - and there is some glee in constraining liberties under a dominant state apparatus. They are clearly happy for this to endure, perhaps permanently.
These two groups have the numbers. And we have a spineless populist government who follow not lead.
It is genuinely terrifying if you are a liberal. Your fears are justified.
Gazing through social media I've really noticed how the mood of the, shall we say, "non-aligned" commentators, those without a zero-covid / anti-government or anti-Mask / anti-vax axe to grind, correlates closely with whether cases are rising overall or falling. Much more so than the total numbers. I suppose it's human nature, we focus on the trend rather than the absolute value.
The 40k or so cases per day now are causing something bordering on panic, particularly now hospitalisations and deaths are rising too. When we were down to 40k cases per day early in the year those commentators were much more optimistic, because things were moving in the right direction.
So what? Well, we know this wave will peak at some point (Zoe implies it may be happening now, I postulate it may happen 8 days after the Euro final + a few days) and then cases will start falling. Once we are comfortably in the waning phase just watch the mood of the nation change. Notice also how they will ignore, or be less bothered by, the high death numbers that come from it being a lagging indicator.
So I reckon in about Mid August we *may* see some big style sighing of relief and readiness to party across the country. People may be taking holidays then. Whether that means yet another bounce for the Tories from their already high levels who knows.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
That is both perfectly understandable and completely unsustainable.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
The places I’ve always found ridiculously inaccessible are East Surrey and Kent.
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
I remember some yeats ago complaining that HS2 wasn't linked to HS1 in any useful way - ie no prospect of you, me or anyone else north of Islington being able to take a direct train to somewhere civilised like Avignon without having to get out in London and walk between stations with your luggage, or take the Tube ditto, and I was sneered at here for being so demanding ...
Slouching towards St Pancras...
Indeed. Where the likes of Tess of the d'Urbervilles and Jude the Obscure were born.
I love it actually - and pay mental homage to Hardy when I am there - but not changing trains unnecessarily.
I really think we are done in over Covid. My 'live and let live' elderly neighbour, who happily had dinner parties throughout the first lockdown, told me that she now thinks that masks and hand sanitiser should stay for good, as they help with stopping the flu.
I've been in group chats with university friends and they all seem to believe that the covid rules, including being pinged and covid passports should be accepted and any loss of civil liberties is acceptable on the basis that some people in society cannot police themselves.
They just don't engage with the fact that the hospitalisation rate is low, when I bring that up they move on to saying it is justifed by a need to protect the vulnerable, who are medically unable to take the vaccine. But the reality is that this category of people are also likely to be at risk from a whole load of other diseases going around and we don't undertake large scale societal interventions to protect them from these.
I don't know what the answer is, the only thing that keeps me sane is the fact that the kids parents at my sons school all refused one day to wear masks. But I think this pandemic has driven the country mad.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
What is striking right now are the states of the housing market and the labour market.
The pandemic has forced (or enabled) a lot of people to reassess their priorities, and there is no doubt that the virtues of a cheaper but quieter life away from the ‘rat-race’ of the city has escalated massively, particularly for those in middle age who are already halfway up the housing ladder and able to contemplate cashing in their property price gains.
The state of the estate agents’ windows, out here in the beautiful but remote wilds, now only able to be filled by displaying properties already sold (in some cases without even a viewing) speaks volumes.
I hear from New York that the exodus from that particularly urban environment has been more dramatic still.
So a lot of people have exited the Labour market altogether and others are hanging in there, relying on WFA and WFH becoming permanent changes.
I predicted peak London back in the very early days of the pandemic, and stick by my view.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
That is both perfectly understandable and completely unsustainable.
As is the special privilege conferred in IHT of those who have (a) a house , by implication in an expensive area, and (b) children in a proper Tory-approved family unit to which to leave it. It's blatantly favoourable to Tory voters in the SE but makes wider reform that much of a shocker.
I must agree with those of you who favour Fixed Term Parliaments and I regret that PM will regain power to select election date.
I can see next GE being October 2023 (which avoids Lab and Con Conferences) or May 2024. Problem with either is that it cannot be too close to Scottish Independence Referendum. Also Boundary Changes legally happen July 2023 and 3 months may be too tight for MPs who must find another seat as their present seat disappears or significantly changes against their party. Toss up between October 2023 and May 2024.
A Sindyref rerun is unlikely to happen unless the SNP and Greens together win a majority of votes in the Holyrood election in 2026, or at least in the next British general election. The main way it could come about earlier is if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in a Holyrood election that's called early. But that would require that SNP MSPs take their noses out of the trough and risk their seats - in a country which so far this century has voted 12 times out of 12 to stay in the Union.
The SNP and SGs already have the majority - so tht at is not the issue. Whether at Holyrood or the Scottish Westminster seats.
Yeah but you've also got Nicola Sturgeon who'd rather be matron of the nation and pad her own nest rather than risk a referendum she might lose.
I must agree with those of you who favour Fixed Term Parliaments and I regret that PM will regain power to select election date.
I can see next GE being October 2023 (which avoids Lab and Con Conferences) or May 2024. Problem with either is that it cannot be too close to Scottish Independence Referendum. Also Boundary Changes legally happen July 2023 and 3 months may be too tight for MPs who must find another seat as their present seat disappears or significantly changes against their party. Toss up between October 2023 and May 2024.
A Sindyref rerun is unlikely to happen unless the SNP and Greens together win a majority of votes in the Holyrood election in 2026, or at least in the next British general election. The main way it could come about earlier is if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in a Holyrood election that's called early. But that would require that SNP MSPs take their noses out of the trough and risk their seats - in a country which so far this century has voted 12 times out of 12 to stay in the Union.
The SNP and SGs already have the majority - so tht at is not the issue. Whether at Holyrood or the Scottish Westminster seats.
Yeah but you've also got Nicola Sturgeon who'd rather be matron of the nation and pad her own nest rather than risk a referendum she might lose.
If that's what Gnud means then fair enough, but I'm wondering what his/her logic is!
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Rubbish, the main reason the Tories have a majority of 80 and seats in white working class former Labour heartlands in the North and Midlands is down to Boris.
Anyway, even if the Tories saw a 10% swing to the LDs in the South in 2023/24 the LDs would still only pick up about 25 seats, which would still give a narrow Tory majority of 30 if Boris held the Red Wall.
Boris is the most successful Tory election winner since Thatcher and when they got rid of her it did not end well. The Tories then proceeded to lose 3 out of the next 4 general elections and even when they returned to power in 2010 it was without a majority
Careful now, tiger - dismissing me yesterday and @MaxPB today (both of whom, I'm guessing, voted Cons in 2019) is making your "who cares" work even harder.
What would Oscar say in such a situation...
I live in a three way marginal seat. If the Lib Dems prove themselves to be a serious party (stop laughing) by 2023/24 I know where my vote is going. If not I'll sit on my hands, I can't vote for the Tories led by Boris. The guy is a complete numpty.
I like and respect you hugely Max. Some principles, perhaps you can be one of the people who can put the Tories back into the mainstream, as a party I might vote one day vote for (again)
Unlikely given that I'm not in the party and tbh, I don't think I'll be tempted to join until the likes of HYFUD are made to feel unwelcome and move to some other party or go independent.
Given we are on 40%+ in every poll you will be waiting a long time for that, I am actually on the moderate end of the current Tory Party
Can you give examples that convince you are?
crushing SNP heads using tank tracks and nuking Spain doesn’t come across as moderate.
For example, where do you stand on using some form of dementia tax to fairly fund social care. The current government doesn’t seem to have a care policy at all?
And on house building. Build on green belt and build more council houses?
The party supports refusing indyref2.
Even May scrapped a dementia tax.
Unlike Philip I want to build on brownbelt land first and minimise green belt construction
“ Even May scrapped a dementia tax.”.
Isn’t this a bit vacuous it could be a Libdem position? We say no to Iraq War. We say no to Tuition Fees. We say no to Dementia tax. That’s not a policy though? What is the moderate policy position in the Tory Party regarding funding Social care? Surely some sort of baseline on funding from existing wealth as proposed in 2017 is the moderate way forward for meeting bills in the years ahead?
And council housing HY? Surely the moderate position in the Tory party is for building more council housing to meet the challenge of the years ahead?
Nope, it was hugely unpopular in 2017 and was one of the main factors May lost her majority.
The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.
Yes you can build more social homes but using the sale of existing council homes to help fund it so more still have the opportunity to buy their own homes
“The moderate position on social care is certainly not taking peoples house to fund even at home care, at most it is using NI to fund it.”
Unpopular sure, especially if attacked mercilessly by rival party’s and media who aren’t actually proposing a policy.
But surely it is the moderate way forward. A burgeoning social care bill to be paid for by NI which is tax, by workers struggling to afford homes, whilst those with the treasure refuse to spend it on their care and health needs, you are actually saying is the fairer and more moderate position going forward.
What can we agree on? The country had a problem? None of the parts currently have much stated policy for dealing with it, let alone what the moderate and fair policy is?
I think I was about the only person in the country (well, I’m sure there were a few council finance bods) who was cheering on May’s proposals.
Hyufd’s position on this is, sadly, bang in line with public opinion and, well, completely morally indefensible.
May be a bit more complex than you think.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
That is both perfectly understandable and completely unsustainable.
It is perfectly sustainable, if society is willing to accept the cost of much lower social mobility and opportunity. The Labour party was basically campaigning for lower social mobility and to protect capital ahead of labour to an unreasonable degree.
A scathing letter which demanded Freedom Day be delayed and was backed by more than 1,200 'experts' allowed people with no scientific credentials to sign it.
I must agree with those of you who favour Fixed Term Parliaments and I regret that PM will regain power to select election date.
I can see next GE being October 2023 (which avoids Lab and Con Conferences) or May 2024. Problem with either is that it cannot be too close to Scottish Independence Referendum. Also Boundary Changes legally happen July 2023 and 3 months may be too tight for MPs who must find another seat as their present seat disappears or significantly changes against their party. Toss up between October 2023 and May 2024.
A Sindyref rerun is unlikely to happen unless the SNP and Greens together win a majority of votes in the Holyrood election in 2026, or at least in the next British general election. The main way it could come about earlier is if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in a Holyrood election that's called early. But that would require that SNP MSPs take their noses out of the trough and risk their seats - in a country which so far this century has voted 12 times out of 12 to stay in the Union.
The SNP and SGs already have the majority - so tht at is not the issue. Whether at Holyrood or the Scottish Westminster seats.
Yeah but you've also got Nicola Sturgeon who'd rather be matron of the nation and pad her own nest rather than risk a referendum she might lose.
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
Also, the rebounded London might look different.
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
It is, however, ridiculously peripheral. It's tucked away right down there in the bottom corner of the country.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
The places I’ve always found ridiculously inaccessible are East Surrey and Kent.
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
I remember some yeats ago complaining that HS2 wasn't linked to HS1 in any useful way - ie no prospect of you, me or anyone else north of Islington being able to take a direct train to somewhere civilised like Avignon without having to get out in London and walk between stations with your luggage, or take the Tube ditto, and I was sneered at here for being so demanding ...
Slouching towards St Pancras...
Indeed. Where the likes of Tess of the d'Urbervilles and Jude the Obscure were born.
I love it actually - and pay mental homage to Hardy when I am there - but not changing trains unnecessarily.
Splashing the cash could have no better destination.
A scathing letter which demanded Freedom Day be delayed and was backed by more than 1,200 'experts' allowed people with no scientific credentials to sign it.
Hmm. So dentists and midwives have no scientific credentials or knowledge? LIke, say, they're still in the good old mediaeval barber surgeon and wise woman era?
That's a pity, it was good. We had a very select PB Tory (as I was then!) dinner there some years ago. That was the evening at the end of which @JohnO famously fell asleep on the train and woke up in Bournemouth or somewhere.
It's certainly not the only casualty. It's not clear if The Ledbury will ever re-open - it was one of the top two or three restaurants in London.
The Ledbury might be gone?! Wow
I was never a massive fan but it had such a stellar reputation....
Another victim is the Atlantic Bar at Sheekeys, which was a blissful place to guzzle oysters in fine style and yet at reasonable prices. They've now folded it into the main restaurant which is twice as pricey, and the food is somehow worse
Is London collapsing? Is it worth staying?
It was only a couple of days ago you were telling us you sensed it roaring back.
It has clearly escaped your attention that I am prone to mood swings. I am also prone to wishful thinking. I want London to roar back to life (likewise Paris, NYC, and so on), and yet if I am honest with myself I am not sure how it happens, logically. Certainly not soon
The world has changed for good. Working From Home is not going away. If you can or must Work From Home you will work somewhere spacious and green, maybe sunny and warm. That ain't London
Meanwhile so many of the other things that made London life seductive - restaurants, shops, galleries, opera houses, everything, the whole glittering cavalcade, are either damaged, diminished or dead
So why live in London, or NYC? As crime spirals?
For several decades the great western cities enjoyed power and wealth and ever increasing prestige (and populations). That epoch is over. The process is flung into reverse
London will likely rebound in time. But it will take a long time
From September I expect most people will be working back in the office at least 3 days a week, with maybe the other 2 still WFH.
So I expect the big global cities like NYC and London to gradually rebound, though more workers will continue to move out to the outer suburbs and rural areas and bigger houses there and take advantage of the bigger space and mix of city life when they want it but a home life with more green space and fresh air
It is possible that the flagpole cities like London and NYC will do OK, as they are SO big and prestigious, people will still want to live and work there. If that happens, it is the 2nd order cities that will suffer much more. Chicago, say, or Manchester
They don't have the seductions of a New York or a London, but will have many of the nasty issues - crime, depopulation, and so on
I am particularly pessimistic about American cities. They are fucked
What is striking right now are the states of the housing market and the labour market.
The pandemic has forced (or enabled) a lot of people to reassess their priorities, and there is no doubt that the virtues of a cheaper but quieter life away from the ‘rat-race’ of the city has escalated massively, particularly for those in middle age who are already halfway up the housing ladder and able to contemplate cashing in their property price gains.
The state of the estate agents’ windows, out here in the beautiful but remote wilds, now only able to be filled by displaying properties already sold (in some cases without even a viewing) speaks volumes.
I hear from New York that the exodus from that particularly urban environment has been more dramatic still.
So a lot of people have exited the Labour market altogether and others are hanging in there, relying on WFA and WFH becoming permanent changes.
I predicted peak London back in the very early days of the pandemic, and stick by my view.
History could suggest that living in a great, but declining, world city would be quite a pleasant experience. All the trappings of grandness, the great old restaurants and famous viewpoints, the tourists each summer, but less traffic and thinner crowds. The over-priced trappings of world business dissipated. And the posh areas reclaimed by eccentrics, thespians and intellectuals. Probably a good hotbed for a pop music or alternative culture explosion too.
I must agree with those of you who favour Fixed Term Parliaments and I regret that PM will regain power to select election date.
I can see next GE being October 2023 (which avoids Lab and Con Conferences) or May 2024. Problem with either is that it cannot be too close to Scottish Independence Referendum. Also Boundary Changes legally happen July 2023 and 3 months may be too tight for MPs who must find another seat as their present seat disappears or significantly changes against their party. Toss up between October 2023 and May 2024.
A Sindyref rerun is unlikely to happen unless the SNP and Greens together win a majority of votes in the Holyrood election in 2026, or at least in the next British general election. The main way it could come about earlier is if a majority vote for pro-indy parties in a Holyrood election that's called early. But that would require that SNP MSPs take their noses out of the trough and risk their seats - in a country which so far this century has voted 12 times out of 12 to stay in the Union.
The SNP and SGs already have the majority - so tht at is not the issue. Whether at Holyrood or the Scottish Westminster seats.
Yeah but you've also got Nicola Sturgeon who'd rather be matron of the nation and pad her own nest rather than risk a referendum she might lose.
A Scotch expert as I live and breathe.
TBF I think that’s Malc’s view as well. If he’s not qualified then who is?
Comments
If that awful prospect comes about I can even see the Western Cape declaring independence, it is the only South African province not run by the ANC
Ditto the obese. Off you waddle
If the working world is moving towards a model of working alone on some days, working together on other days, there won't be the same need to pour millions of workers into London every day. But there will still be a need for a hub where remote workers can do all the stuff that workers do when they congregate.
London is still fantastically well configured for that- all the lines of communication pass through it, in a way that doesn't really work for anywhere else. And if a couple of days in the Big Smoke, pressing the flesh, becomes the norm... the market for all the fun stuff London has to offer looks quite promising. More so than at the moment, because working in London full-time dulls the senses as to what's on offer.
Obviously with vaccine between 60-80% effective at stopping symptomic infection, plenty of people will get it.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1415690392704536582?s=20
It gave no time to debate the issue properly or have it considered on its merits, which has now salted the earth to make it tougher for anything like that to actually go through now.
Considering no election was scheduled yet it could have been floated either before the election, or after it, but to propose it during the election? That was stupid.
It is often said that the people who are most opposed to the parent's house being brought into the financial assessment are opposed because it will limit or remove their inheritance - and this is true.
But it is also true, and I speak from personal experience, that the home is regarded by the elderly parents as the family home, not purely their home; and is, indeed, their pride and joy. Their main achievement in life. Taking that away to maintain them in a nursing home is intolerable to them. In their minds it is already their children's asset.
Funding from other assets is less problematic, but the family home in their view should be untouchable and would cause significant mental anguish if this were threatened.
And there are an awful lot of familys where the ONLY asset, bar chump change, is the property.
Post-vaccines the faster it spreads, the sooner it burns out, the less need there is for the vulnerable to shield.
I'm thinking of Cornwall, Dorset, Australia, Portugal, Greece or Thailand
Not yet, but in a few years (kids, etc)
I maybe have the option of a nice house on Scotland Island, north of Sydney, Owned by a close friend who is considering a big life change as well (ie, me). Quite tempting. Wake up, catch fish, cook breakfast, lie in hammock, drink wine. Sydney an hour away
I certainly don't hold a politically stupid move by May responsible for the cowardice of others in not bringing something forward now. Leaders need to lead, not whinge about it being hard to do something which is meant to be hard.
If they want to only do easy things they shouldn't ask for the responsibility to govern 68m people.
Spend your life as a profligate with money not saving nor accumulating assets.....get taxpayers to fund your care
Do the right thing and save and set yourself up for old age.......you get it all taken as your reward if you need care.
This gives a perverse disincentive to bother saving in my view and there needs to be some balance here.
Sort of an each way bet.
Londoners have always had a mysterious belief that London was somehow really easy for everyone else to get to - but everywhere else was somehow far too difficult for Londoners to get to. That may change, if London breathes out for a bit.
Winter in Oz, summer in Europe. Tolerable
There just isn’t a decent road to them, largely because they’re next to London and all the roads there are a bit shit.
Plus there are almost no direct trains, or even changes at the same station. Again, because of London.
The most moderate and fair policy has to be option one?
However, we have an acute and growing need for social care for the elderly, which won't come cheap.
The main financial asset most people have is their home, because the UK has spend four decades or so pumping money into house prices. If we don't tap into that to pay for social care, what other source of money are we going to use to pay for it?
Being immunocompromised, or suffering from some other ailment that puts you at much increased risk from Covid and many other such nasties, is - to adapt the old adage about ageing - not for wimps. I'm not personally afflicted by such conditions but have plenty of knowledge of them, through people I know who are close to me and about whom I care and worry.
I have two shielders in my life, both of whom are fortunate enough to at least have been able to have the vaccines, but also harbour concerns that they might not have been very effective for them. Both go out to work for at least part of the week; therefore, neither is spending their entire life sat at home. Most people in that position won't accept continuing to live under house arrest, and nor should they be expected to do so.
It was still a good proposal, but that was a hell of a shambolic bit of political presentation.
For example my daughter (17) is working in a pub and cafe. Saving like a demon. When she leaves school and enters low paid employment (which she will) her savings will be in danger of making her ineligible for universal benefit because this new benefit is means-tested against savings whereas tax credits were not. The person next to her at work doing the same job but has not saved up anything, in effect, will get paid more for for doing the same job.
Re: the issue in point: is it right that the taxpayer has to fund care when the money could come from, in effect, the inheritances of the children? It is a tricky one because, as my post lays out, one surely has to consider the end-of-life wishes of the elderly parent.
We do have some balance already of course, cash and non-property assets go to pay care, main residence you keep.
I spent 40 years thinking that Australian sailors were nutters because the Sydney to Hobart race is dangerous enough anyway, without holding it in midwinter. Then the lightbulb moment.
There's meant to be one coming, linking Oxford and Cambridge, but it'll probably take so long to finish that everyone who might benefit from it who's over the age of about 20 will have died by the time the rotten thing finally opens.
It's typically the same story. Infrastructure projects in this country take almost an eternity to deliver and cost multiples of the already huge budgets initially projected for them. Look at the seemingly neverending Crossrail saga - although that's nothing compared to HS2. It wouldn't surprise me if it took until the middle of the century to get all the lines north of Birmingham completed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9790999/Symptom-tracking-app-claims-number-people-falling-ill-virus-day-FALLEN.html
* Worth pointing out that the house is only exempt in certain circumstances, the most common being that the spouse lives in it still. Spouse-in-the-house = untouchable.
Smart solicitors tell clients to write wills so that property is tenants in common (rather than joint tenants) and each half is willed separately. So when one parent dies their half of the property becomes immediately inherited and owned by the children (under trust) with the surviving spouse still entitled to live in 100% of the property even though they now only own 50% of the house. This means that if the surviving spouse ends up in a nursing home only half of the house, at most, is under threat.
Back in 1963, the US lost the USS Thresher with all hands. The nuclear submarine was believed to have sunk below crush death quickly.
However, recently-released documents indicate that at least one person may have been alive on the Thresher a day after the supposed sinking: another submarine detected several different attempts at communications, e.g. the rescue beacon, sonar pings, garbled radio and bashing on the hull.
It was a noisy acoustic environment with all the search ships around, but this went on for hours. It was also in very deep water, so if it was still mostly intact, it would have had to be above the crush depth.
The excellent Jive Turkey has a long video on it, linked below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV5FGTxIU4Q
This leads to many questions, considering up to now the story was that the US Navy heard implosion sounds a day earlier. It'll be interesting to see what else comes out. My bet would be the sounds heard were erroneous, the other submarine's crew being desperate to hear signs of their comrades and confusing different signals.
But it is intriguing. A US Navy cover-up?
I reckon about 50k as the peak of the smoothed average too. No special insight, just extending the curve.
Though we do appear to have had a genuine blip this week. Many (not me) predicted a Euros final bump, and this looks like it.
The implosion can clearly be seen on the sonar data that was released. The energy of the event in unmistakable - and it is a lot. Tons of TNT equivalent.
The state of the wreckage of the submarine is quite clear as to what happened.
In the history of underwater acoustic searches like that, there are tons of false reports.
I've been in group chats with university friends and they all seem to believe that the covid rules, including being pinged and covid passports should be accepted and any loss of civil liberties is acceptable on the basis that some people in society cannot police themselves.
They just don't engage with the fact that the hospitalisation rate is low, when I bring that up they move on to saying it is justifed by a need to protect the vulnerable, who are medically unable to take the vaccine. But the reality is that this category of people are also likely to be at risk from a whole load of other diseases going around and we don't undertake large scale societal interventions to protect them from these.
I don't know what the answer is, the only thing that keeps me sane is the fact that the kids parents at my sons school all refused one day to wear masks. But I think this pandemic has driven the country mad.
Additionally in terms of real insight, I presume there's a correlation!
Boris Johnson probably will come up with something to improve the Union. Personally I liked the idea of a motorway roundabout under the Isle of Man - not for its precise form but for the way of thinking.
Stupidly, given Eid ul Adha starts on Monday.
I'm not ordinarily one for conspiracy theories, but this one's got me quite interested. In reality, chances are the Navy investigated and decided it was just operator error on the Seawolf.
On the other hand, Mr Jive Turkey seems quite het up about it, and he was a sonarman for a couple of decades (his channel is excellent, btw...)
I could see the writing on the wall as early as March last year. I wrote a header about it. At the time I thought that most people had not twigged the seriousness of the pandemic. All they were focused on was health and they failed to see that we have a new enduring risk in life. They gave no acknowledgement of liberties or the economy - i.e. the wider picture. I argued that making health and the NHS the-only-thing-that-matters was a mistake and the initial lockdown should not have been extended past the original 12 weeks. It was a brave piece to write at the time, but look where were are now.
Liberals have been caught in a pincer-movement between authoritarian rule-followers on the right and dystopian illiberals on the left. I think that more of the former can be turned than the latter, especially as fear tapers more and more. The latter have revealed that they never liked liberal democracy in the first place - particularly the liberal bit - and there is some glee in constraining liberties under a dominant state apparatus. They are clearly happy for this to endure, perhaps permanently.
These two groups have the numbers. And we have a spineless populist government who follow not lead.
It is genuinely terrifying if you are a liberal. Your fears are justified.
The 40k or so cases per day now are causing something bordering on panic, particularly now hospitalisations and deaths are rising too. When we were down to 40k cases per day early in the year those commentators were much more optimistic, because things were moving in the right direction.
So what? Well, we know this wave will peak at some point (Zoe implies it may be happening now, I postulate it may happen 8 days after the Euro final + a few days) and then cases will start falling. Once we are comfortably in the waning phase just watch the mood of the nation change. Notice also how they will ignore, or be less bothered by, the high death numbers that come from it being a lagging indicator.
So I reckon in about Mid August we *may* see some big style sighing of relief and readiness to party across the country. People may be taking holidays then. Whether that means yet another bounce for the Tories from their already high levels who knows.
I love it actually - and pay mental homage to Hardy when I am there - but not changing trains unnecessarily.
What is striking right now are the states of the housing market and the labour market.
The pandemic has forced (or enabled) a lot of people to reassess their priorities, and there is no doubt that the virtues of a cheaper but quieter life away from the ‘rat-race’ of the city has escalated massively, particularly for those in middle age who are already halfway up the housing ladder and able to contemplate cashing in their property price gains.
The state of the estate agents’ windows, out here in the beautiful but remote wilds, now only able to be filled by displaying properties already sold (in some cases without even a viewing) speaks volumes.
I hear from New York that the exodus from that particularly urban environment has been more dramatic still.
So a lot of people have exited the Labour market altogether and others are hanging in there, relying on WFA and WFH becoming permanent changes.
I predicted peak London back in the very early days of the pandemic, and stick by my view.
A scathing letter which demanded Freedom Day be delayed and was backed by more than 1,200 'experts' allowed people with no scientific credentials to sign it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9784397/Lancet-letter-demanded-Freedom-Day-scrapped-signed-people-NO-scientific-credentials.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9792171/Graphs-surge-cases-men-twenties-spike-coincides-Euro-2020.html