Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Baffling
They are a state broadcaster, and should be using presenters that have trained as journalists and come through the ranks at the Corporation. As you say, it's the football we want to see, the presenter doesn't matter
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.
So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I expect Boris would be happy with the payrise but I doubt Lineker would be happy with the paycut (even if he does get Chequers and No 10 thrown in)
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
Eurosport is very good. I like them on most of what they cover. They're the opposite of bloated and it works really well.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
"Despicable"?
Good grief.
Yes despicable.
Trying to constrain supply and so keep house prices high artificially so you profiteer on others suffering is despicable. What else would you call it?
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
Would Lineker have to stop selling bags of fat to children if he became PM?
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
Don't forget,
Anything not covered by the mainstream e.g. tech... YouTube
Not just outside the mainstream. Kids YouTube is better than CBBC.
My seven-year old son would massively disagree with you on that.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?
Because housing is the number one cost in most people's household budgets.
If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.
Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.
So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
Nice Socialist housing policy you are advocating there.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.
So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
Nice Socialist housing policy you are advocating there.
HYUFD and IshmaelZ both absolutely hate free market economics.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?
Because housing is the number one cost in most people's household budgets.
If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.
Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?
So either it's a boring irrelevance to me and I am naive and ignorant about it, or I am evilly exerting every fibre of my being to keep house prices insanely high. Which is it?
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.
So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
Nice Socialist housing policy you are advocating there.
Not socialist at all, just not free market liberal.
South Hams District council for example as below has imposed a residency requirement that new dwellings must be occupied by local people with a tie to the area and has ruled that newly built homes can only be used as a primary residence not second home and it is certainly not socialist.
In Epping Forest you have to have lived in the area for 7 years to qualify for a new council home
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?
Because housing is the number one cost in most people's household budgets.
If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.
Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?
So either it's a boring irrelevance to me and I am naive and ignorant about it, or I am evilly exerting every fibre of my being to keep house prices insanely high. Which is it?
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
I would not go as far as South Hams and ban Londoners from buying new dwellings in Devon or Kent or Sussex but new dwellings which are affordable (which should be about 40% of new properties under most local plans) should be focused on local people,
I also think restrictions on second homes are needed in some areas like Devon and Cornwall, the Cotswolds and Southwold where locals cannot afford to rent let alone buy
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.
So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
Nice Socialist housing policy you are advocating there.
Not socialist at all, just not free market liberal.
South Hams District council for example as below has imposed a residency requirement that new dwellings must be occupied by local people with a tie to the area and has ruled that newly built homes can only be used as a primary residence not second home and it is certainly not socialist.
In Epping Forest you have to have lived in the area for 7 years to qualify for a new council home
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
I think double or even triple Council Tax is a good idea for second homes due to the externalities it creates, but I see no problems with second homes if people are willing to pay for it.
In case anyone's still worried about empty supermarkets, I'd like to report a very low stock of pasta in my local Waitrose - I'm going to have to make macaroni carbonara tonight.
This may be Brexit based, but I think more likely to be down to their open fridges and freezers failing during the recent heatwave, and the consequences of that
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?
Because housing is the number one cost in most people's household budgets.
If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.
Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?
So either it's a boring irrelevance to me and I am naive and ignorant about it, or I am evilly exerting every fibre of my being to keep house prices insanely high. Which is it?
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.
In case anyone's still worried about empty supermarkets, I'd like to report a very low stock of pasta in my local Waitrose - I'm going to have to make macaroni carbonara tonight.
This may be Brexit based, but I think more likely to be down to their open fridges and freezers failing during the recent heatwave, and the consequences of that
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.
Let the others sign big cheques for Lineker immediately then, please..
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.
The Leader of the Opposition wasn't paid extra until I think 1935?
Meant several politicians refused the gig, notably Asquith in 1898, because they simply couldn't afford to give up the day job to do it.
Of course MPs themselves were not paid until 1911 (under Asquith).
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
"Despicable"?
Good grief.
Yes despicable.
Trying to constrain supply and so keep house prices high artificially so you profiteer on others suffering is despicable. What else would you call it?
Well, I'd get rid of the bit about "profiteering on others (sic) suffering", unless you have some proof that's a specific motivator. That just leaves a situation where people are looking out for themselves and not bothering too much about the impact of their actions on wider society.
Which I'd call a somewhat selfish, yet perfectly natural and understandable course of action, which the Government could easily legislate to prevent if it so wanted (and was prepared to deal with the fallout). Calling it "despicable" seems utterly unwarranted and over the top, and means any sympathy I might have with the point your making instantly evaporates.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.
The Leader of the Opposition wasn't paid extra until I think 1935?
Meant several politicians refused the gig, notably Asquith in 1898, because they simply couldn't afford to give up the day job to do it.
Of course MPs themselves were not paid until 1911 (under Asquith).
And Churchill could not use all his rooms at the Admiralty because he could not pay for 12 servants.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
And you according to ... you. The flings of Leon, as it were.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.
Though there does seem to be a strange desire to give famous people other peoples money....
Bit like publishing companies giving ridiculous advances to badly ghost written memoirs by various politicians - money that is effectively a gift, since the sales number will be low....
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?
Because housing is the number one cost in most people's household budgets.
If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.
Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?
So either it's a boring irrelevance to me and I am naive and ignorant about it, or I am evilly exerting every fibre of my being to keep house prices insanely high. Which is it?
Take your pick, you tell me.
No you tell me. Both theses are yours, not mine.
I think it's the latter. You claim it's the former. Either way it's bad.
If you are a NIMBY who doesn't know or care that rigging the market produces high house prices are a burden on others then you're a selfish ignoramus.
If you are a NIMBY who actively wants to rig the market to get high house prices in order to profiteer on the suffering of others then you're a nasty selfish twunt.
I suspect the latter but neither way is good.
PS if there's a free market and house prices are going up because wages are going up, and price/earning ratios are stable or even coming down then that's a good thing.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.
45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.
You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?
I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.
I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
I think double or even triple Council Tax is a good idea for second homes due to the externalities it creates, but I see no problems with second homes if people are willing to pay for it.
It still depopulates though. For 2 reasons, first by driving youngsters away, and second by the house only being populated a small amount of the year so no local spending for at least 75% of the year.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.
Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.
Prediction for this third wave (considering second wave as whole of last winter):
Based on current immunity level - 65% (full immunity from having had COVID, partial immunity from vaccination). Herd immunity level - 85% Current rate of progress towards herd immunity = 0.4% per week.
I think with society opened up we end up only a little short of herd immunity from this wave, about 20% of the population (including many vaccinated) having had COVID in this wave.
Official case count by end of wave, ca. 10.5-11.5 million (5 million more for this wave to add to the 1.5 million so far) Further deaths ca. 10-12000
Peak week: Third week in October, progress towards herd immunity that week, 1.6%, COVID prevalence, 1 in 40 (primarily young or vaccinated), cases registered ca. 700k Deaths peak around 1400 per week in 1st week November.
After that week downward pressures (half-terms &c) get the whip hand as we are much closer to herd immunity than now, and the upticks from schools being back and Christmas are weak.
By mid-January cases are at very low levels and the wave is considered over.
Possible curve ball - a variant which is more infectious specifically in primary school kids once 12-16 are vaccinated, keeps case numbers high a little longer in November and January.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
Hahahahaha.
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
"Despicable"?
Good grief.
Yes despicable.
Trying to constrain supply and so keep house prices high artificially so you profiteer on others suffering is despicable. What else would you call it?
Well, I'd get rid of the bit about "profiteering on others (sic) suffering", unless you have some proof that's a specific motivator. That just leaves a situation where people are looking out for themselves and not bothering too much about the impact of their actions on wider society.
Which I'd call a somewhat selfish, yet perfectly natural and understandable course of action, which the Government could easily legislate to prevent if it so wanted (and was prepared to deal with the fallout). Calling it "despicable" seems utterly unwarranted and over the top, and means any sympathy I might have with the point your making instantly evaporates.
If you are rigging the market by denying construction, so that people are compelled to pay you more rather than pay less getting a home elsewhere then yes that means bumping the housing costs of others.
Profiteering is scorned in any other sector of society. If energy suppliers were actively involved in preventing new energy suppliers from entering the market, in order to maximise their profits by keeping energy costs high then would you consider that sort of profiteering despicable? I would.
Do what you want with your own assets but rigging the market trying to prevent others from undercutting you absolutely should be illegal.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
I wouldn't.
A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
He is free to date whoever he likes. However, those working around him should be allowed to do their jobs without harrasment.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.
Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.
Are they second homers?
I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad. I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.
45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.
You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?
I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.
I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels
In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers
Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while
"By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.
Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.
Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.
Are they second homers?
No. Any homes owned due to working away don't count as like now. My wife and I were in a similar system before we retired. Our home in West Wales we've had for 20+years. All our bills and bank accounts are based there. We had to rent a flat in Oxfordshire as we taught in a school there. We went home to Wales every other weekend and school holidays. We only owned 1 home, but if we had owned both it would be due to employment. Our local Welsh council were very happy with that arrangement and didn't class our Welsh home as a holiday home for that reason.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
His brother, Wayne, was all over my mates then 17 year old daughter in Ibiza about 5 years ago. He would have been about 53 at the time
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
As yes, that is an excellent point. Bringing the world to rights is fine as long as it does not interfere with who / what one likes. The most laughable ones are those - a la Emma Thompson - who wail about climate change and the need to take fewer flights, and then point to buying carbon credits to offset the flights they have taken. Carbon credit are the luvvies' equivalent of medieval indulgences.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.
Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.
Are they second homers?
I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad. I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.
The issue is trying to distinguish between "real" second homers and people moving into a community. Even if someone moves to place, they may well visit their old haunts for a while.
In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....
Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
Having watched the Olympics in the States, this is mild.
Roger is a sensitive soul - he hates everything about his country with a vengeance.
I don't know. He likes the way 'talent' can abuse women in his industry with abandon. In his view, they should just leave the industry and become hairdressers ...
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
Unless you're exactly sixteen, when it's illegal
I wouldn't say a 16yr old sleeping with a 15yr old was creepy
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
Unless you're exactly sixteen, when it's illegal
I wouldn't say a 16yr old sleeping with a 15yr old was creepy
Oh, I quite agree. I think I've been driven to look for edge cases by all the covid reporting..
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
For each person that went along with it and made millions, there were hundreds who were simply abused. By scumbags.
There is a reason that in decent companies having an affair by some working below you in the hierarchy is a sackable offence.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.
Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.
Are they second homers?
I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad. I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.
The issue is trying to distinguish between "real" second homers and people moving into a community. Even if someone moves to place, they may well visit their old haunts for a while.
In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....
Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....
Yeah it's a tough one. The place I'm interested in has chalets which are over 100 years old and they have always been holiday homes - I know this because my great grandfather bought one in the 1920s. In those days they were affordable for someone like him, a dockyard worker from Devonport, now they are super expensive of course. I'm not sure there's a big moral distinction between buying one and renting it out, and staying in one as a paying guest of some other outsider owner as we do now. I love the place because my family has been staying there for at least 5 generations and I'd love to maintain that tangible link.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
As yes, that is an excellent point. Bringing the world to rights is fine as long as it does not interfere with who / what one likes. The most laughable ones are those - a la Emma Thompson - who wail about climate change and the need to take fewer flights, and then point to buying carbon credits to offset the flights they have taken. Carbon credit are the luvvies' equivalent of medieval indulgences.
That's a great analogy.
And I say that as someone who has been using it for the past dozen years!
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
The point is that only 10% want more
I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?
I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.
I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.
Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.
I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.
So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
What ridiculous xenophobia.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.
If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
I wouldn't.
A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors
They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.
Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
Rogeradumus strikes again.....
I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better
FTFY.
Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better. Want drama? Netflix etc are better. Want news? PB etc are better. Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.
What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?
I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.
I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
Maybe they should arrange a job swap.
I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.
A win, win as far as I am concerned.
I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
For each person that went along with it and made millions, there were hundreds who were simply abused. By scumbags.
There is a reason that in decent companies having an affair by some working below you in the hierarchy is a sackable offence.
Maybe in large businesses.
But I know lots of people who met their significant other that way. I know lots of people who married someone they first met through work and that applied.
Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?
Too much: 45% An appropriate level: 31% Not enough: 10%
Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.
45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.
You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?
I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.
I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels
In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers
Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while
"By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.
Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."
"The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."
Comments
They are a state broadcaster, and should be using presenters that have trained as journalists and come through the ranks at the Corporation. As you say, it's the football we want to see, the presenter doesn't matter
I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.
I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?
As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.
Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.
So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
Good grief.
There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
Trying to constrain supply and so keep house prices high artificially so you profiteer on others suffering is despicable. What else would you call it?
Vaccines work.
If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.
Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?
Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
South Hams District council for example as below has imposed a residency requirement that new dwellings must be occupied by local people with a tie to the area and has ruled that newly built homes can only be used as a primary residence not second home and it is certainly not socialist.
In Epping Forest you have to have lived in the area for 7 years to qualify for a new council home
This stoppage is the first in half a century.
No Balls have still scored more than Burns as it stands.
I also think restrictions on second homes are needed in some areas like Devon and Cornwall, the Cotswolds and Southwold where locals cannot afford to rent let alone buy
Totalitarian.
This may be Brexit based, but I think more likely to be down to their open fridges and freezers failing during the recent heatwave, and the consequences of that
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-58116324
I do hope any deaths relating to his care are investigated.
Meant several politicians refused the gig, notably Asquith in 1898, because they simply couldn't afford to give up the day job to do it.
Of course MPs themselves were not paid until 1911 (under Asquith).
They built houses to match the number of incomers.
Idiots, eh?
Reporting date is problematic when the rates are changing......
Which I'd call a somewhat selfish, yet perfectly natural and understandable course of action, which the Government could easily legislate to prevent if it so wanted (and was prepared to deal with the fallout). Calling it "despicable" seems utterly unwarranted and over the top, and means any sympathy I might have with the point your making instantly evaporates.
Bit like publishing companies giving ridiculous advances to badly ghost written memoirs by various politicians - money that is effectively a gift, since the sales number will be low....
It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.
What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
If you are a NIMBY who doesn't know or care that rigging the market produces high house prices are a burden on others then you're a selfish ignoramus.
If you are a NIMBY who actively wants to rig the market to get high house prices in order to profiteer on the suffering of others then you're a nasty selfish twunt.
I suspect the latter but neither way is good.
PS if there's a free market and house prices are going up because wages are going up, and price/earning ratios are stable or even coming down then that's a good thing.
Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.
Are they second homers?
Based on current immunity level - 65% (full immunity from having had COVID, partial immunity from vaccination).
Herd immunity level - 85%
Current rate of progress towards herd immunity = 0.4% per week.
I think with society opened up we end up only a little short of herd immunity from this wave, about 20% of the population (including many vaccinated) having had COVID in this wave.
Official case count by end of wave, ca. 10.5-11.5 million (5 million more for this wave to add to the 1.5 million so far)
Further deaths ca. 10-12000
Peak week:
Third week in October,
progress towards herd immunity that week, 1.6%, COVID prevalence, 1 in 40 (primarily young or vaccinated), cases registered ca. 700k
Deaths peak around 1400 per week in 1st week November.
After that week downward pressures (half-terms &c) get the whip hand as we are much closer to herd immunity than now, and the upticks from schools being back and Christmas are weak.
By mid-January cases are at very low levels and the wave is considered over.
Possible curve ball - a variant which is more infectious specifically in primary school kids once 12-16 are vaccinated, keeps case numbers high a little longer in November and January.
Profiteering is scorned in any other sector of society. If energy suppliers were actively involved in preventing new energy suppliers from entering the market, in order to maximise their profits by keeping energy costs high then would you consider that sort of profiteering despicable? I would.
Do what you want with your own assets but rigging the market trying to prevent others from undercutting you absolutely should be illegal.
A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.
In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers
Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while
"By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.
Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."
https://www.ft.com/content/1c489fb7-2840-4810-b3e6-a036803edf5c
I know, right!?!
In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....
Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....
The England captain, who has been on an extended holiday after Euro 2020, added he has been "hurt" by comments questioning his professionalism.
-------
Daniel Levy off the Christmas Card list.
There is a reason that in decent companies having an affair by some working below you in the hierarchy is a sackable offence.
I'm not sure there's a big moral distinction between buying one and renting it out, and staying in one as a paying guest of some other outsider owner as we do now. I love the place because my family has been staying there for at least 5 generations and I'd love to maintain that tangible link.
And I say that as someone who has been using it for the past dozen years!
Felix Organ has just dropped a dolly off Jack Taylor.
Taylor will find an inventive way to throw it away still, but it was a bad miss.
But I know lots of people who met their significant other that way. I know lots of people who married someone they first met through work and that applied.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/
Was the sort of thing I was referring to.