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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?
Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
Stone cold sober
I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you
When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way
Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
No, you are inflating property prices in a desirable area of Britain, so that locals are priced out. You do not need a second home, so it is pure greed. I am not against greed per se, but in this case it really does damage lives
I do not own a second home. I would not buy one in the UK partly for this reason. If I were to buy a 2nd home, it would be abroad and in an area that actively needs and asks for incomers - there are plenty of such places in the Med, and further afield
No, you are wrong. I just sense a sad bit of envy on your part, dressed up as righteous indignation. Keep saving up Sean, a few more book sales and that place in Rock that you so desire might be yours after all. Time to go and go to the pub to satisfy my insatiable greed for good quality ale. Sorry if I am taking it form the more deserving.
It’s one of those problems that get largely resolved when we exit the zero interest rate environment.
It’s been a disaster for the young and assetless especially when combined with a government that isn’t willing to do anything to actively suppress house price inflation.
Personally, I’d tax housing at a level just high enough to squeeze out the buy to letters and casual too-much-spare-money-in-the-bank-earning-nothing second home owners. 3% of the value per year would do it. Then use the proceeds to reduce income tax.
Or we could just put up interest rates to something more sensible and solve the problem that way.
Except house price to earning ratios went up when interest rates were seven percent. They also went up when there was high immigration but very low construction.
Almost as if low supply and high demand means high prices regardless of interest rates.
You're not even listening to my argument. Unless you ban any sex between employees in the same company (which we are probably quite close to doing) then you will get situations like the one I adumbrate. A hot young woman who steals a march on her female rivals by seducing a powerful older guy (or woman, that happens too).
I suppose the older man or woman could refuse, but that is asking quite a lot of human nature. And once two people are fucking, favouritism becomes inevitable. Everyone employs people they like, if they can
I am listening to your argument; it just seems excuse-making for reprehensible behaviour.
As it happens, I ended up dating a woman whom I was project managing at Company Y. We both told our managers once the relationship started, and I was banned from giving any input to her appraisals (fnarr, fnarr). I ended up marrying her, and I eventually chucked in work to look after the little 'un, so it was probably to her advantage...
Oddly enough, when it finally became knowledge that we were seeing each other, the best reaction from another engineer was: "Why?"
Banning relationships at work would be harmful IMO. The important thing is to ensure that either party gets no unfair advantage - and that is why bosses need to be really careful.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?
Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
Stone cold sober
I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you
When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way
Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
No, you are inflating property prices in a desirable area of Britain, so that locals are priced out. You do not need a second home, so it is pure greed. I am not against greed per se, but in this case it really does damage lives
I do not own a second home. I would not buy one in the UK partly for this reason. If I were to buy a 2nd home, it would be abroad and in an area that actively needs and asks for incomers - there are plenty of such places in the Med, and further afield
No, you are wrong. I just sense a sad bit of envy on your part, dressed up as righteous indignation. Keep saving up Sean, a few more book sales and that place in Rock that you so desire might be yours after all. Time to go and go to the pub to satisfy my insatiable greed for good quality ale. Sorry if I am taking it form the more deserving.
So since you have no qualms with owning two homes (and I have none either) presumably you have no desire to support NIMBYism?
Presumably you're ok with there being enough construction to ensure that every other household in Britain can own two homes each too?
There's about 27.8 million households in Britain so if we go with two households each then we need to increase the housing stock to 55.6 million houses. I assume you're ok with that? I have no issues with that but I wonder if you do?
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
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.
Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time
But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily
That complicates it - sometimes
It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
God you're dumb
Both sides have power, it has always been this way
Men have the material power, the money and rank (or they did, generally). They exploit it.
But young women have the sexual power, they have the beauty men will literally kill for. And some young women exploit that, too
Thus: human history.
That somebody with this reductive cliched misogynistic view of "how the world works, always has, always will" considers me to be dumb is a source of great comfort and not a little pride. If I could glow I'd be glowing.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?
Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
Stone cold sober
I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you
When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way
Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
Second homes here in North Wales and Wales generally are a source of considerable controversy and the Welsh government are introducing pilot schemes with a view to tackling the effect on the language and culture.
Included will be the affordability and availability of housing, regulatory framework and systems covering planning and the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for holiday homes
Fairer contributions using national and local taxes to ensure second home owners make a fair and effective contribution to the communities in which they buy will be implemented
Second homes have previously seen arson attacks and vandalism, and for once the Welsh government are likely to receive widespread support over these long overdue measures
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?
Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
Stone cold sober
I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you
When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way
Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
No, you are inflating property prices in a desirable area of Britain, so that locals are priced out. You do not need a second home, so it is pure greed. I am not against greed per se, but in this case it really does damage lives
I do not own a second home. I would not buy one in the UK partly for this reason. If I were to buy a 2nd home, it would be abroad and in an area that actively needs and asks for incomers - there are plenty of such places in the Med, and further afield
No, you are wrong. I just sense a sad bit of envy on your part, dressed up as righteous indignation. Keep saving up Sean, a few more book sales and that place in Rock that you so desire might be yours after all. Time to go and go to the pub to satisfy my insatiable greed for good quality ale. Sorry if I am taking it form the more deserving.
I bet you earn more money in one year than Sean does in two.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?
Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
Stone cold sober
I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you
When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way
Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
Second homes here in North Wales and Wales generally are a source of considerable controversy and the Welsh government are introducing pilot schemes with a view to tackling the effect on the language and culture.
Included will be the affordability and availability of housing, regulatory framework and systems covering planning and the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for holiday homes
Fairer contributions using national and local taxes to ensure second home owners make a fair and effective contribution to the communities in which they buy will be implemented
Second homes have previously seen arson attacks and vandalism, and for once the Welsh government are likely to receive widespread support over these long overdue measures
Forty years ago, a relative bought a holiday home in south-mid Wales. Her first night there, she got a visit from a bunch of burly men wanting to know what a 'foreigner' was doing buying into the area.
She greeted them with some Welsh she had learnt, and that weekend they were doing some work on her new home for her. I do wonder if much of the problem with second homes is people coming in and arrogantly expecting their new home to be too similar to their first home, as if they had transplanted part of the city a few hundred miles.
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.
Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time
But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily
That complicates it - sometimes
It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
God you're dumb
Both sides have power, it has always been this way
Men have the material power, the money and rank (or they did, generally). They exploit it.
But young women have the sexual power, they have the beauty men will literally kill for. And some young women exploit that, too
Thus: human history.
You have a very traditional and heterosexual view of the world I must say. I am surprised this is the case because you recently seemed very besotted with Tom Daley, which I can understand!
And struggles with what "derivative" means when it comes to power. Ah well. It's Friday.
A very very guilty pleasure that the owners will try and hide, as it becomes evermore socially unacceptable
I understand from my billionaire friends that private jets are now a real problem to own. Lots of condemnation. Some buy them secretly and anonymously
Can’t they just hire them?
You can.There's a Portugal based company whose name escapes me, 100% owned by Warren Buffet, which is sort of Boris bikes but for Learjets. Because as someone said, if you own just the one, it always ends up on the wrong continent.
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was 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.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was 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.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
A very very guilty pleasure that the owners will try and hide, as it becomes evermore socially unacceptable
I understand from my billionaire friends that private jets are now a real problem to own. Lots of condemnation. Some buy them secretly and anonymously
Can’t they just hire them?
So what do second homes, private jets and younger women all have in common…..
That’s actually an interesting point. Even as i decry 2nd home owners as greedy (and I do) I have no doubt had more than my fair share of attractive younger women. I have, in effect, priced the locals out of the sexual market
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27% Bad thing - 31% Neither - 16%
Silly question to ask, since the premise is false.
A very very guilty pleasure that the owners will try and hide, as it becomes evermore socially unacceptable
I understand from my billionaire friends that private jets are now a real problem to own. Lots of condemnation. Some buy them secretly and anonymously
Can’t they just hire them?
So what do second homes, private jets and younger women all have in common…..
That’s actually an interesting point. Even as i decry 2nd home owners as greedy (and I do) I have no doubt had more than my fair share of attractive younger women. I have, in effect, priced the locals out of the sexual market
A very very guilty pleasure that the owners will try and hide, as it becomes evermore socially unacceptable
I understand from my billionaire friends that private jets are now a real problem to own. Lots of condemnation. Some buy them secretly and anonymously
Can’t they just hire them?
So what do second homes, private jets and younger women all have in common…..
That’s actually an interesting point. Even as i decry 2nd home owners as greedy (and I do) I have no doubt had more than my fair share of attractive younger women. I have, in effect, priced the locals out of the sexual market
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27% Bad thing - 31% Neither - 16%
I take it the remaining 26% were DK?
They were hopefully "Sorry, not answering a fatuous question generated by a fatuous comment from a stupendously fatuous politician."
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?
Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
Stone cold sober
I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you
When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way
Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
Second homes here in North Wales and Wales generally are a source of considerable controversy and the Welsh government are introducing pilot schemes with a view to tackling the effect on the language and culture.
Included will be the affordability and availability of housing, regulatory framework and systems covering planning and the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for holiday homes
Fairer contributions using national and local taxes to ensure second home owners make a fair and effective contribution to the communities in which they buy will be implemented
Second homes have previously seen arson attacks and vandalism, and for once the Welsh government are likely to receive widespread support over these long overdue measures
Very sensible. They should do the same in Cornwall. It cannot continue as it is down there. Prices are insane and local Cornish on Cornish wages are desperate
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27% Bad thing - 31% Neither - 16%
Silly question to ask, since the premise is false.
It's not false.
Since the mines were closed, the dash for gas was politically viable and happened.
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
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?
Absolutely, and Johnson should get the gig. No half measures.
I don't know about selling bags of fat. Johnson is a bag of fat.
Mainly muscle, I think. Philip is strong on this and I had to eventually concede.
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
I don’t get the attraction. Rain and cancer? No thanks.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27% Bad thing - 31% Neither - 16%
Silly question to ask, since the premise is false.
It's not false.
Since the mines were closed, the dash for gas was politically viable and happened.
We replaced British coal with imports. Even with the dash for gas, there was still sufficient demand for coal to keep many of the pits open.
Even now, there are cargoes of thermal coal coming in to the UK.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
He's not in Wales.
As I understand the app algorithm you can be side by side but it has to be for a certain time (15mins?).
But to be honest, whatever the exact details, once again it looks bad.
I suspect he wont isolate because he is not at Chequers.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
But you said you're interested in/fine with buying a second home in Cornwall.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
I don’t get the attraction. Rain and cancer? No thanks.
I take it you mean the radium thingy?
Not a massive issue.
The rain is an issue, however. I don’t quite understand the mania for Cornwall. either. And I’m Cornish. It’s rather nice with a high life quality, but also some properly grotty areas. It ain’t Nirvana
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
Number 1, London? Do I get a tenner if I correctly identify you as the current Duke of Wellington?
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
He's not in Wales.
Maybe he should come here then !!!!!!
Did we ever get to the bottom of why double jabbed have to wait until mid august before they can test rather than isolate on contact?
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
And North Wales
We have a development within 800 yards of 12 luxury apartments overlooking the golf course for upwards of 1 million pounds plus
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27% Bad thing - 31% Neither - 16%
Silly question to ask, since the premise is false.
It's not false.
Since the mines were closed, the dash for gas was politically viable and happened.
Once again you have got the wrong end of the stick. The point isn't that more mines closed under Labour as you gleefully claimed yesterday or that it was a good idea because we had lots of North Sea gas. They may both be accurate assertions for all I know. However the politics of the quip is unfortunate particularly in the left behind pit villages that fell full square behind Johnson and Brexit.
Why do you not know this? Why does Johnson not know this?
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
But you said you're interested in/fine with buying a second home in Cornwall.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
What does that follow from? Indeed, why would "If you can own one home, surely everybody else can too" be self-evident? And what about Ferraris? should we build lots and lots of Ferrari factories until a Ferrari is within reach of every household in the country? If not, why not?
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.
Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time
But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily
That complicates it - sometimes
Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers
Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you
So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.
Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say
So, in your view, women should use their looks to shag their way to the top, regardless of any intelligence or skills they might have? And the lucky, dumb men are just fortunate?
You're the one being naïve. Wilfully, I believe. (It feels odd calling you naïve, but there you go...)
It shouldn't be that way, as all to quickly 'willing' becomes 'exploited'. Which is exactly how Weinstein et al got their conquests. "Oh, you want the job? Sure, you'll have to compete with that girl. And you know what she does..."
People selling their bodies or suffering abuse to get or keep a job is wrong.
(Although I do wonder how the military fits into the above.)
Yep. The go-to putdown of self-aiding comfortable cynicism is "don't be naive". Hats off for rejecting it. I have now completely forgotten our private schools tumble. 🙂
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
He's not in Wales.
Maybe he should come here then !!!!!!
Did we ever get to the bottom of why double jabbed have to wait until mid august before they can test rather than isolate on contact?
Dates not data?
This is the one thing that all parts of the UK should have agreed on together
I may have mentioned previously, but at my sons wedding last Saturday the guests came from Scotland, England and Wales and the one thing that was a constant was that they did not like the administrations acting separately throughout the crisis
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I'm from the North East. I know all about local communities being destroyed.
If all those Cornish folks want to find affordable homes they should get on their bikes and look for them.
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27% Bad thing - 31% Neither - 16%
Silly question to ask, since the premise is false.
It's not false.
Since the mines were closed, the dash for gas was politically viable and happened.
Once again you have got the wrong end of the stick. The point isn't that more mines closed under Labour as you gleefully claimed yesterday or that it was a good idea because we had lots of North Sea gas. They may both be accurate assertions for all I know. However the politics of the quip is unfortunate particularly in the left behind pit villages that fell full square behind Johnson and Brexit.
Why do you not know this? Why does Johnson not know this?
I wasn't on this site yesterday so I didn't claim anything of the sort. Though it's true, so whoever you mixed me up with was 100% correct.
Anyway I don't think the former mining villages care that much about mining four decades later. I think people have moved on.
Though London Labour Loving Lefty Luvvies on Twitter may still be obsessed with mining, I don't think it swings votes anymore.
Breaking: Boris Johnson is facing mounting anger after it emerged he continued with a tour of Scotland and decided not to isolate despite a member of his team testing positive for Covid-19 on the trip.
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
From tomorrow here in Wales you do not need to isolate if you have been double vaccinated
He's not in Wales.
As I understand the app algorithm you can be side by side but it has to be for a certain time (15mins?).
But to be honest, whatever the exact details, once again it looks bad.
I suspect he wont isolate because he is not at Chequers.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
It's piled insult on injury for young locals who find themselves completely excluded from the local housing market.
The "second homers" are now becoming "first homers" as they appreciate the reality of being able to WFH from Carbis Bay rather than having to get on a train at Croydon, Cricklewood or Colchester.
I've lived in St Ives in January - it's not the summer idyll by any stretch but if the new first homers do stay and add to the community there's a chance places like that won't be like ghost towns in the depths of winter.
The towns may be re-invigorated but that doesn't help the aspiring youngsters get on the property ladder. Even if we turned places like Ludgvan, Praze-an-Beeble, Leedstown and Sancreed into huge housing developments with thousands of new homes, who would buy them and at what prices? Where is that active private rental sector that is so often the start on the housing ladder?
I appreciate Conservatives want home ownership because home owners tend to be Conservative voters but housing policy and provision must be mixed and part of that, it seems to me, is an active and properly regulated rental sector.
Whilst refusing to self isolate on contact with a covid positive colleague Johnson has spent the day slagging off old coal miners.
Have I got today's update right?
Mostly
On the radio this morning ex-coal miners were incandescent that the mines may have been closed for political reasons. The main motivation being revenge for the political assassination of the Heath government by the unions.
I guess I missed the bit where we decided we'd be governed by the unions.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
But you said you're interested in/fine with buying a second home in Cornwall.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
What does that follow from? Indeed, why would "If you can own one home, surely everybody else can too" be self-evident? And what about Ferraris? should we build lots and lots of Ferrari factories until a Ferrari is within reach of every household in the country? If not, why not?
100 yes we should have enough car manufacturers so that everyone in Britain who wants a car can buy one, if they choose to do so.
Oh wait there are. That's already the case.
You keep substituting a sector for a brand. So you name Ritz when any hotel can compete. Or you name Ferrari when any car can compete.
There isn't just one hotel brand, one car company, or one house builder. There's a whole sector with companies that can and should compete.
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
I don’t get the attraction. Rain and cancer? No thanks.
I take it you mean the radium thingy?
Not a massive issue.
The rain is an issue, however. I don’t quite understand the mania for Cornwall. either. And I’m Cornish. It’s rather nice with a high life quality, but also some properly grotty areas. It ain’t Nirvana
I saw some brilliant pro-nuclear propaganda at the Sellafield visitor centre. You had to categorise the danger of different radiation sources. The Hiroshima bomb was obviously the most dangerous, but then the moderately dangerous source wasn’t. Predictably it wasn’t any of the waste at Sellafield but was living in Cornwall!
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
But you said you're interested in/fine with buying a second home in Cornwall.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
What does that follow from? Indeed, why would "If you can own one home, surely everybody else can too" be self-evident? And what about Ferraris? should we build lots and lots of Ferrari factories until a Ferrari is within reach of every household in the country? If not, why not?
100 yes we should have enough car manufacturers so that everyone in Britain who wants a car can buy one, if they choose to do so.
Oh wait there are. That's already the case.
You keep substituting a sector for a brand. So you name Ritz when any hotel can compete. Or you name Ferrari when any car can compete.
There isn't just one hotel brand, one car company, or one house builder. There's a whole sector with companies that can and should compete.
Wanting cheap housing in property hotspots is the same as wanting a stay at the Ritz for the price of a Travelodge.
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
Indeed, go to New Zealand and all the young people complain about the house prices in Auckland and Hawke's Bay and also that all the new housing developments are retirement villages.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
The same applies elsewhere too in many nice places people want to live. Restricting supply and then refusing to recognise that second homes have a societal cost is at best selfish.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
But you said you're interested in/fine with buying a second home in Cornwall.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
What does that follow from? Indeed, why would "If you can own one home, surely everybody else can too" be self-evident? And what about Ferraris? should we build lots and lots of Ferrari factories until a Ferrari is within reach of every household in the country? If not, why not?
100 yes we should have enough car manufacturers so that everyone in Britain who wants a car can buy one, if they choose to do so.
Oh wait there are. That's already the case.
You keep substituting a sector for a brand. So you name Ritz when any hotel can compete. Or you name Ferrari when any car can compete.
There isn't just one hotel brand, one car company, or one house builder. There's a whole sector with companies that can and should compete.
Wanting cheap housing in property hotspots is the same as wanting a stay at the Ritz for the price of a Travelodge.
Not at all.
I'm saying I'm ok with a Travelodge being built next door to the Ritz.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
The same applies elsewhere too in many nice places people want to live. Restricting supply and then refusing to recognise that second homes have a societal cost is at best selfish.
Whilst refusing to self isolate on contact with a covid positive colleague Johnson has spent the day slagging off old coal miners.
Have I got today's update right?
Well at least its not like those old, Scargill supporting, coal miners now vote Tory in the Labour red wall........well they might not next time anyway.
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
I don’t get the attraction. Rain and cancer? No thanks.
I take it you mean the radium thingy?
Not a massive issue.
The rain is an issue, however. I don’t quite understand the mania for Cornwall. either. And I’m Cornish. It’s rather nice with a high life quality, but also some properly grotty areas. It ain’t Nirvana
I saw some brilliant pro-nuclear propaganda at the Sellafield visitor centre. You had to categorise the danger of different radiation sources. The Hiroshima bomb was obviously the most dangerous, but then the moderately dangerous source wasn’t. Predictably it wasn’t any of the waste at Sellafield but was living in Cornwall!
The sun is our most dangerous source. We're all totally dead if there are issues with the magnetosphere (These may not be the right words to use, but it doesn't change it)
If you were the life-planner for the Human race it'd not be about planters, rather, escape!
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
No, it's a National Park, which is an AONB on steroids. You don't understand the most basic nuts and bolts points about any of this, do you?
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.
Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time
But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily
That complicates it - sometimes
Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers
Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you
So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.
Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say
So, in your view, women should use their looks to shag their way to the top, regardless of any intelligence or skills they might have? And the lucky, dumb men are just fortunate?
You're the one being naïve. Wilfully, I believe. (It feels odd calling you naïve, but there you go...)
It shouldn't be that way, as all to quickly 'willing' becomes 'exploited'. Which is exactly how Weinstein et al got their conquests. "Oh, you want the job? Sure, you'll have to compete with that girl. And you know what she does..."
People selling their bodies or suffering abuse to get or keep a job is wrong.
(Although I do wonder how the military fits into the above.)
Yep. The go-to putdown of self-aiding comfortable cynicism is "don't be naive". Hats off for rejecting it. I have now completely forgotten our private schools tumble. 🙂
Perhaps neither of you are being naive and that is why this problem is so prevalent. It is in the interest of some women (a very small minority) to exploit their looks knowingly and, as the instigator, with their own full consent and knowledge of the consequences. It is in the interests of some men (and the evidence suggests this is a significant minority) to exploit good looking women for their own sexual gratification. The actions of both these groups reinforce the behaviours and consequences of the other. That some women are willing to exploit their sexuality for advancement provides implicit permission which emboldens some men to require it. That some men are so emboldened provides patterns of behaviour and antecedents that inform other women that this is accepted behaviour and the route to success.
Absolutely not right or ok. But it is not as simplistic as 'men are pigs'. While I believe that men's bad behaviour in this regard is both more prevalent and worse, there are two sets of unacceptable behaviour which can reinforce each other to produce a toxic environment.
And before anyone complains, I am not suggesting that the women's bad behaviour necessarily precedes the men's. It clearly does not in most cases.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
No, it's a National Park, which is an AONB on steroids. You don't understand the most basic nuts and bolts points about any of this, do you?
Absolutely which would mean under my proposal it's except from the free market of construction. What part of that did you not understand? 🤔🤦♂️
Though you should probably move out if you want the land to be uninhabited.
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.
Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time
But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily
That complicates it - sometimes
It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
God you're dumb
Both sides have power, it has always been this way
Men have the material power, the money and rank (or they did, generally). They exploit it.
But young women have the sexual power, they have the beauty men will literally kill for. And some young women exploit that, too
Thus: human history.
You have a very traditional and heterosexual view of the world I must say. I am surprised this is the case because you recently seemed very besotted with Tom Daley, which I can understand!
And struggles with what "derivative" means when it comes to power. Ah well. It's Friday.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
Philip has a point tho. Unless you restrict 2nd home ownership somehow - especially in honeypots like Cornwall, Devon, West Wales, Skye, then you are either 1. Happy to see local communities destroyed, or 2. Happy to see limitless construction
I only live in the one house.
But you said you're interested in/fine with buying a second home in Cornwall.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
What does that follow from? Indeed, why would "If you can own one home, surely everybody else can too" be self-evident? And what about Ferraris? should we build lots and lots of Ferrari factories until a Ferrari is within reach of every household in the country? If not, why not?
100 yes we should have enough car manufacturers so that everyone in Britain who wants a car can buy one, if they choose to do so.
Oh wait there are. That's already the case.
You keep substituting a sector for a brand. So you name Ritz when any hotel can compete. Or you name Ferrari when any car can compete.
There isn't just one hotel brand, one car company, or one house builder. There's a whole sector with companies that can and should compete.
Wanting cheap housing in property hotspots is the same as wanting a stay at the Ritz for the price of a Travelodge.
Not at all.
I'm saying I'm ok with a Travelodge being built next door to the Ritz.
That would put it in Green Park. No way Alan Partridge would be able to afford that. Not without a 2nd series.
"This major faux pas, which it most assuredly is, has come at a time when Conservative strategists had been hoping that more frequent visits to Scotland by the PM and more exchanges with opinion formers would dilute the general antagonism towards him north of the border. " (Telegraph)
The awful property situation in Cornwall is yet another unforeseen consequence of WFH and the plague. Of course it’s long been an issue, but suddenly it’s a critical as rich Londoners race down the A30
I don’t get the attraction. Rain and cancer? No thanks.
I take it you mean the radium thingy?
Not a massive issue.
The rain is an issue, however. I don’t quite understand the mania for Cornwall. either. And I’m Cornish. It’s rather nice with a high life quality, but also some properly grotty areas. It ain’t Nirvana
I saw some brilliant pro-nuclear propaganda at the Sellafield visitor centre. You had to categorise the danger of different radiation sources. The Hiroshima bomb was obviously the most dangerous, but then the moderately dangerous source wasn’t. Predictably it wasn’t any of the waste at Sellafield but was living in Cornwall!
Which is the more dangerous - living 50 years within 25 miles of a nuclear power plant or living 3 months in Denver?
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
Yes, there's a milder form of that round here, though the "Russians" tend to be wealthy retired people. There are a fair number of jobs that aren't well-paid - shop assistants, junior office staff, railway staff and so on. If you grow up here, you could take one of those while still living at home, but that doesn't appeal to most. So what you get is young people commuting in at long distance from cheaper villages dotted around the countryside. Building cheaper homes for them locally is unpopular with many, because they see it as undermining the pleasant retirement surroundings - more traffic, green belt encroachment, inappropriately tall blocks. It'd be popular with the young - but they don't live locally so don't vote here.
That, oddly enough, is why Tory centralisation of planning to force areas to take more housing does have a case for it. The problem is that they don't seem especially to want to use that power to build cheap blocks of flats etc., so the model remains essentially unchanged, except that there will be more choice for the wealthy.
There is however lots of support for liberal values without major new house-building, and people here voted overwhelmingly Remain. So the Tories would be unwise to take them for granted, as we saw in C&A.
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
Yes, there's a milder form of that round here, though the "Russians" tend to be wealthy retired people. There are a fair number of jobs that aren't well-paid - shop assistants, junior office staff, railway staff and so on. If you grow up here, you could take one of those while still living at home, but that doesn't appeal to most. So what you get is young people commuting in at long distance from cheaper villages dotted around the countryside. Building cheaper homes for them locally is unpopular with many, because they see it as undermining the pleasant retirement surroundings - more traffic, green belt encroachment, inappropriately tall blocks. It'd be popular with the young - but they don't live locally so don't vote here.
That, oddly enough, is why Tory centralisation of planning to force areas to take more housing does have a case for it. The problem is that they don't seem especially to want to use that power to build cheap blocks of flats etc., so the model remains essentially unchanged, except that there will be more choice for the wealthy.
There is however lots of support for liberal values without major new house-building, and people here voted overwhelmingly Remain. So the Tories would be unwise to take them for granted, as we saw in C&A.
"There is however lots of support for liberal values"
Whilst refusing to self isolate on contact with a covid positive colleague Johnson has spent the day slagging off old coal miners.
Have I got today's update right?
Well at least its not like those old, Scargill supporting, coal miners now vote Tory in the Labour red wall........well they might not next time anyway.
At least Trump, addled as he is, managed to work out that in certain counties in the Rust Belt bigging up mines and coal was a good idea.
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.
You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.
I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.
But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.
I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.
What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
No, it's a National Park, which is an AONB on steroids. You don't understand the most basic nuts and bolts points about any of this, do you?
Absolutely which would mean under my proposal it's except from the free market of construction. What part of that did you not understand? 🤔🤦♂️
Though you should probably move out if you want the land to be uninhabited.
Philip. You can't have a free for all in house building because there are negative externalities which the government must manage.
Whilst refusing to self isolate on contact with a covid positive colleague Johnson has spent the day slagging off old coal miners.
Have I got today's update right?
Well at least its not like those old, Scargill supporting, coal miners now vote Tory in the Labour red wall........well they might not next time anyway.
At least Trump, addled as he is, managed to work out that in certain counties in the Rust Belt bigging up mines and coal was a good idea.
Dont tempt them or those who can't afford private school will be offered the chance to work underground. We could even let them build their own dwellings down there too.
A very very guilty pleasure that the owners will try and hide, as it becomes evermore socially unacceptable
I understand from my billionaire friends that private jets are now a real problem to own. Lots of condemnation. Some buy them secretly and anonymously
Can’t they just hire them?
So what do second homes, private jets and younger women all have in common…..
That’s actually an interesting point. Even as i decry 2nd home owners as greedy (and I do) I have no doubt had more than my fair share of attractive younger women. I have, in effect, priced the locals out of the sexual market
Hmm. Something to ponder as I sip my Nyetimber
Maybe there's a trade-off? My near thirty years of happy monogamy means I can be forgiven my lusting after rural property?
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
Boringly on topic, a Sunak led Tory party has a much higher ceiling than a Johnson one, but perhaps not a significantly better chance of a majority. I am one of those who really, really dislike this government, but could imagine voting for a Sunak government if it tackled the cronyism, division and lack of coherent strategy that is inevitable with Boris.
Sunak will clearly do better in Remainia, and currently would do no worse in the Red Wall. However Boris may well be better at re-inventing himself to whatever positions are needed in 2023/4 than Sunak.
Comments
Almost as if low supply and high demand means high prices regardless of interest rates.
As it happens, I ended up dating a woman whom I was project managing at Company Y. We both told our managers once the relationship started, and I was banned from giving any input to her appraisals (fnarr, fnarr). I ended up marrying her, and I eventually chucked in work to look after the little 'un, so it was probably to her advantage...
Oddly enough, when it finally became knowledge that we were seeing each other, the best reaction from another engineer was: "Why?"
Banning relationships at work would be harmful IMO. The important thing is to ensure that either party gets no unfair advantage - and that is why bosses need to be really careful.
Presumably you're ok with there being enough construction to ensure that every other household in Britain can own two homes each too?
There's about 27.8 million households in Britain so if we go with two households each then we need to increase the housing stock to 55.6 million houses. I assume you're ok with that? I have no issues with that but I wonder if you do?
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
A very very guilty pleasure that the owners will try and hide, as it becomes evermore socially unacceptable
I understand from my billionaire friends that private jets are now a real problem to own. Lots of condemnation. Some buy them secretly and anonymously
At the moment it's one of a selection of leaky tents ...
Another one for the list, but very close.
Liam Plunkett.
County career began May 2003 and the T20 Blast started in June 2003.
Included will be the affordability and availability of housing, regulatory framework and systems covering planning and the introduction of a statutory registration scheme for holiday homes
Fairer contributions using national and local taxes to ensure second home owners make a fair and effective contribution to the communities in which they buy will be implemented
Second homes have previously seen arson attacks and vandalism, and for once the Welsh government are likely to receive widespread support over these long overdue measures
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk&ab_channel=BBCStudios
She greeted them with some Welsh she had learnt, and that weekend they were doing some work on her new home for her. I do wonder if much of the problem with second homes is people coming in and arrogantly expecting their new home to be too similar to their first home, as if they had transplanted part of the city a few hundred miles.
YouGov
@YouGov
Boris Johnson has said that Britain got a "big early start" on climate change by closing coal mines in the 1980s - but do Britons think doing so was a good thing?
Good thing - 27%
Bad thing - 31%
Neither - 16%
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households.
Davey: Except second home owners.
Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
A senior government source told the Guardian the prime minister and official were “side-by-side” on several occasions and even travelled together on an RAF Voyager between Glasgow and Aberdeen, but a Downing Street spokesperson said they did not come into close contact.
The civil servant, who is now isolating at a hotel in Scotland, attended an event with Johnson at a police college on Wednesday, where the prime minister was pictured struggling to open an umbrella in windy weather conditions.
Johnson and several members of the No 10 contingent are not isolating – but a government source said “the whole lot should be”. The Downing Street spokesperson also refused to say if he had been tested since the positive case was discovered.
Hmm. Something to ponder as I sip my Nyetimber
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·50m
Gift. Absolute gift.
Bridget Phillipson @bphillipsonMP
Our Tory PM Boris Johnson thinks Thatcher closing the mines was a model to learn from.
They didn’t care then.
They don’t care now.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Since the mines were closed, the dash for gas was politically viable and happened.
Labour the only party losing percentage share (-9.1)
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
58m
East Livingston and East Calder (West Lothian) council by-election, first preferences:
SNP: 42.5% (+1.7)
CON: 24.4% (+2.4)
LAB: 21.8% (-9.1)
GRN: 7.6% (+4.0)
LDEM: 2.7% (0.0)
IFS: 1.1% (+1.1)
Seat status:
SNP GAIN from Labour.
Even now, there are cargoes of thermal coal coming in to the UK.
But to be honest, whatever the exact details, once again it looks bad.
I suspect he wont isolate because he is not at Chequers.
If you can own two homes, surely everyone else can too? And that means construction. Lots and lots of construction, more than even I have ever advocated for.
Not a massive issue.
The rain is an issue, however. I don’t quite understand the mania for Cornwall. either. And I’m Cornish. It’s rather nice with a high life quality, but also some properly grotty areas. It ain’t Nirvana
Dates not data?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
We have a development within 800 yards of 12 luxury apartments overlooking the golf course for upwards of 1 million pounds plus
Why do you not know this? Why does Johnson not know this?
Have I got today's update right?
I may have mentioned previously, but at my sons wedding last Saturday the guests came from Scotland, England and Wales and the one thing that was a constant was that they did not like the administrations acting separately throughout the crisis
If all those Cornish folks want to find affordable homes they should get on their bikes and look for them.
They could try Colne for starters.
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
Anyway I don't think the former mining villages care that much about mining four decades later. I think people have moved on.
Though London Labour Loving Lefty Luvvies on Twitter may still be obsessed with mining, I don't think it swings votes anymore.
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
The "second homers" are now becoming "first homers" as they appreciate the reality of being able to WFH from Carbis Bay rather than having to get on a train at Croydon, Cricklewood or Colchester.
I've lived in St Ives in January - it's not the summer idyll by any stretch but if the new first homers do stay and add to the community there's a chance places like that won't be like ghost towns in the depths of winter.
The towns may be re-invigorated but that doesn't help the aspiring youngsters get on the property ladder. Even if we turned places like Ludgvan, Praze-an-Beeble, Leedstown and Sancreed into huge housing developments with thousands of new homes, who would buy them and at what prices? Where is that active private rental sector that is so often the start on the housing ladder?
I appreciate Conservatives want home ownership because home owners tend to be Conservative voters but housing policy and provision must be mixed and part of that, it seems to me, is an active and properly regulated rental sector.
On the radio this morning ex-coal miners were incandescent that the mines may have been closed for political reasons. The main motivation being revenge for the political assassination of the Heath government by the unions.
I guess I missed the bit where we decided we'd be governed by the unions.
Oh wait there are. That's already the case.
You keep substituting a sector for a brand. So you name Ritz when any hotel can compete. Or you name Ferrari when any car can compete.
There isn't just one hotel brand, one car company, or one house builder. There's a whole sector with companies that can and should compete.
The Hiroshima bomb was obviously the most dangerous, but then the moderately dangerous source wasn’t. Predictably it wasn’t any of the waste at Sellafield but was living in Cornwall!
I'm saying I'm ok with a Travelodge being built next door to the Ritz.
If you were the life-planner for the Human race it'd not be about planters, rather, escape!
Absolutely not right or ok. But it is not as simplistic as 'men are pigs'. While I believe that men's bad behaviour in this regard is both more prevalent and worse, there are two sets of unacceptable behaviour which can reinforce each other to produce a toxic environment.
And before anyone complains, I am not suggesting that the women's bad behaviour necessarily precedes the men's. It clearly does not in most cases.
Summer hols. Olympics. Most voters have better things on their mind. As ever.
Though you should probably move out if you want the land to be uninhabited.
PB virtual bar franchise.
Genuine
They are both the same level of risk.
I suspect more people with more minds will gaze less at their navels hitherto.
That, oddly enough, is why Tory centralisation of planning to force areas to take more housing does have a case for it. The problem is that they don't seem especially to want to use that power to build cheap blocks of flats etc., so the model remains essentially unchanged, except that there will be more choice for the wealthy.
There is however lots of support for liberal values without major new house-building, and people here voted overwhelmingly Remain. So the Tories would be unwise to take them for granted, as we saw in C&A.
You didn't sell that sentence.
#tacticalvoting
Shame they didn't show the German on the horse but looking at the one that French was on it was a fantastic show jumper so I'm going with user error.
Sorry, wooked.
Sunak will clearly do better in Remainia, and currently would do no worse in the Red Wall. However Boris may well be better at re-inventing himself to whatever positions are needed in 2023/4 than Sunak.