politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bad news for Theresa May as ORB brings horrible polling for he

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can say? The financial markets are a mysterious beast to the uninitiated (and often, it seems, to most of the initiated as well.) The only constant is that, whenever currencies or shares move up or down, somebody who's clever, lucky or both is making a quick fortune.

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

I made a nice profit on betting the £ as it rose towards the last Brexit vote in the Commons. Fortunately I took a big chunk of profit before the debate, since the £ has sunk back since. But I still believe the opportunity is on the upside, since any sort of outcome resolves the uncertainty and anything other than no deal exit (which I don't believe any PM would ever risk) should produce a significant upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

I am not putting my hard earned on it but I do agree with this. I think everything short of a nuclear winter is priced into Sterling at the moment and there is a lot of upside out of a mere disaster.

If I was a billionaire I'd be looking at London property. It is now in an unprecedented period of stagnation, or decline (in some parts) all of which is based on Brexit uncertainty. Almost ANY outcome (maybe even no deal) will remove the uncertainty, and make it desirable again (especially if the pounds falls further).

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

asjohnstone said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Why the Irish don't abandon their failed republic and restore the queen of Ireland to her throne is beyond me, it'd solve so many problems

The mystery to me is why we think there is any benefit whatsoever from holding onto the six counties.

Polling shows time and again that most mainland Brits, certainly most English people, don't give a fuck about Ulster (in the nicest possible way) and would be quite content for Ireland to reunify.

I should add that I am not one of them: I am a Brit and a Celt and I think the whole nation benefits from being four nations.

But I have to accept most of my fellow Englishmen and women do not share my attachment.

The Irish attitude to reunification is equally intriguing: they desire it in a spiritual, St Augustine-and-celibacy kind of way, but when asked how they feel about it happening NOW then they quail. At least that's the mood I pick up from their media, which I have been following recently

I've also noted that the Irish still suffer a martyr complex, despite benefiting intensely from the EU, and the UK's generosity therein.
e.g. Varadkar recently claimed that Ireland was being "victimised" by Brexit.

You what? The UK wishes to be independent, and somehow that makes Ireland a "victim"? Fuck off.

The northern Irish to me seem to have the attitude of expats who by some quirk of history are still living here.

I expect Americans would be similar if their ancestors had neglected to exterminate the natives.

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of course, in the long run the economy's not going to get fixed whilst such a large percentage of the national wealth is locked up in housing. There's no incentive for most of us, other than the very well-off, to invest in business through shares when property offers such fat guaranteed returns (and when, for many people, being forced to take out a colossal mortgage means there's not much left for anything but day-to-day expenses for the rest of their working lives.)

(Edit: Actually, I think the rotten property market may even be the main reason why so many people still live beyond their means. When mortgages or rents are so large that you can't save very much, then the only way you may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can say? The financial markets are a mysterious beast to the uninitiated (and often, it seems, to most of the initiated as well.) The only constant is that, whenever currencies or shares move up or down, somebody who's clever, lucky or both is making a quick fortune.

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

I made a nice profit on betting the £ as it rose towards the last Brexit vote in the Commons. Fortunately I took a big chunk of profit before the debate, since the £ has sunk back since. But I still believe the opportunity is on the upside, since any sort of outcome resolves the uncertainty and anything other than no deal exit (which I don't believe any PM would ever risk) should produce a significant upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

I am not putting my hard earned on it but I do agree with this. I think everything short of a nuclear winter is priced into Sterling at the moment and there is a lot of upside out of a mere disaster.

If I was a billionaire I'd be looking at London property. It is now in an unprecedented period of stagnation, or decline (in some parts) all of which is based on Brexit uncertainty. Almost ANY outcome (maybe even no deal) will remove the uncertainty, and make it desirable again (especially if the pounds falls further).

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

IanB2 said:

AndyJS said:

another_richard said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

Given that net trade in goods with the EU is around 8% of GDP, if I were to take a guess I’d say something like 0.5% off in Q2 (-25% by value of trade in goods with the EU), maybe down to a total of 1% by the end of the year before recovering early in 2020. There will be a technical recession, but the whole of Europe is about to get one.

Supply chains will adjust much faster than predicted, and government will be united in measures to reduce unnecessary friction. Companies already have a lot of plans in place, what’s causing the immediate problems is the uncertainty of which plan to implement.

The problem with that - and all other forecasts - is that they continue to rely on the UK consumer spending more than 100% of his or her income.

So, the ability of the government to raise demand through the usual methods isn't there.

The problem the UK economy continues to have is that it is fundamentally unbalanced. This isn't anything to do with Brexit, it's the consequence of Blair, Brown, Darling, and Osborne, who discovered that you could do Keynesianism by the back door by persuading people to spend more than they earned.

The real risk of No Deal Brexit is that it finally kicks off the inevitable rebalancing. In the 1990-93 recession, the household savings rate reached 15%. That's 11% above where we are now. To put in context, if we were to see a similar level of swing, it would be the same as Spain had during the Eurozone crisis. Now, I don't think it'll be that bad. But I think people are so fixated on Brexit, they forget that Britain doesn't currently pay its way. And that - one way or another - will revert.

British High Streets will look even more desolate if we ever do start living within our means.

I'm curious as to what French and German high streets look like given that retail sales are falling there.

Surely it's a good thing if we start living within our means.

Sadly the way politics works, more people would vote for their children living within their means.

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

Germany is somewhat resistant to internet shopping, so the German high street is doing OK (even if this is unsustainable and possibly inefficient in the long term)

Provincial France, by contrast, is suffering badly (this may be more to do with labour laws than e-commerce). The rundown French towns I visited on my recent trip to Cognac/Bordeaux were as bleak and boarded up as anywhere in Wales or Lancashire.

And doubtless a factor in the French protests.

But if France is suffering in the pretty tourist area then the likes of Picardy and Lorraine must be in a bad way.

Cognac and Bordeaux are very definitely NOT pretty tourist areas (though Bordeaux is a handsome city). They are flat, boring, grey and tedious, and, once you get there, you realise that the production of cognac and Bordeaux wine is an industry like any other. That is to say: when you look out at the endless vineyards along the Garonne you are looking out at an essentially utilitarian and industrial landscape, like the Welsh coalfields or modern Guangdong, only with the odd charming chateau amongst the grittiness.

Indeed I recommend a tour of Bordeaux to strip away any remaining delusions about the unique fanciness of French wine. They churn it out in tidal waves, from huge concrete warehouses, with ruthlessly clever use of branding to make it seem unusually posh and desirable.

Thanks - I'll blame Rick Stein for the misapprehension - I watched his trip to Bordeaux program earlier this week.

I do wonder if there are French / Spanish / Italian TV chefs eulogizing the 'authentic street food' of Britain.

Isn't the Dordogne near to Bordeaux ? Is that similarly over-rated ?

France is big. The Dordogne and Bordeaux may both be in "south west France" but they about as close to each other as Bath is to Birmingham.

The Dordogne is genuinely beautiful, full of forests and hills and exquisite villages (tho it suffers from depopulation). It also has nice if somewhat fatty food.

Bordeaux the region is, by contrast, dull and often ugly, tho the centre of the city (where Stein went) is very lovely. With good oysters. The food is otherwise a bit meh, like much of French cuisine these days.

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

I'm more familiar with Italy than France or Germany, but my impression is that the overheads in running a shop are less there (not least because many are family owned rather than rented), the culture of personal contact through shopping persists, and the concept of shopping online especially for things like groceries is still in its infancy. Which isn't to say that where we lead, they wont follow, but it will be the younger generation that leads the change, unlike the UK where many middle aged folk already do most of their shopping online.

I think our problem is a combination of the high cost of rented retail space; landlords holding onto empty retail properties waiting for new tenants who are probably never going to come; lack of funds, imagination or both on the part of local authorities in redeveloping clapped out retail areas; and, of course, the low cost and convenience of online shopping (and banking.) I also seem to recall reading somewhere that we're close to the tipping point, in urban centres at least, where ordering good quality takeaway food will be cheaper (as well as easier for time-constrained or plain lazy households) than cooking your own meals f
Clearly physical retail isn't going to decline to zero, especially in large centres and better-off and/or touristy areas, but the contraction probably has some distance left to go yet.

Town centres are destined either to become entirely residential, as have most of our villages which in bygone years contained post offices, butchers, greengrocers and the like, or reinvent themselves as meeting places with a primary focus on cafes, restaurants and other spaces for social meeting and service provision, with some ancillary retail on the side. Most councils currently are struggling with working out which of their towns are heading for either destination.

It will be the latter.

I think the more honest answer is that many, but not all, town centres have the potential to reinvent themselves in such a way, but that there will be a fair few that end up as entirely residential with no need for any commercial high street activity at all, given that there is somewhere more successful within easy driving distance. It is already the case that in many town centres the most valuable use for even high street properties is as conversion to residential, and it is only local planning regulations that hold back the tide.

DavidL said:

I always thought that it was some tax on imported goods, specifically tea, hence the Boston tea party.

Scott_P said:

DavidL said:

I always thought that it was some tax on imported goods, specifically tea, hence the Boston tea party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_act#United_States

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

Germany is somewhat resistant to internet shopping, so the German high street is doing OK (even if this is unsustainable and possibly inefficient in the long term)

Provincial France, by contrast, is suffering badly (this may be more to do with labour laws than e-commerce). The rundown French towns I visited on my recent trip to Cognac/Bordeaux were as bleak and boarded up as anywhere in Wales or Lancashire.

And doubtless a factor in the French protests.

But if France is suffering in the pretty tourist area then the likes of Picardy and Lorraine must be in a bad way.

Cognac

Indeed I recommend a tour of Bordeaux to strip away any remaining delusions about the unique fanciness of French wine. They churn it out in tidal waves, from huge concrete warehouses, with ruthlessly clever use of branding to make it seem unusually posh and desirable.

Thanks - I'll blame Rick Stein for the misapprehension - I watched his trip to Bordeaux program earlier this week.

I do wonder if there are French / Spanish / Italian TV chefs eulogizing the 'authentic street food' of Britain.

Isn't the Dordogne near to Bordeaux ? Is that similarly over-rated ?

France is big. The Dordogne and Bordeaux may both be in "south west France" but they about as close to each other as Bath is to Birmingham.

The Dordogne is genuinely beautiful, full of forests and hills and exquisite villages (tho it suffers from depopulation). It also has nice if somewhat fatty food.

Bordeaux the region is, by contrast, dull and often ugly, tho the centre of the city (where Stein went) is very lovely. With good oysters. The food is otherwise a bit meh, like much of French cuisine these days.

Yet Dordogne is an overwhelmingly left-wing stronghold:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dordogne#Politics

Difficult to imagine the Cotswolds or Herefordshire with that voting pattern.

French politics has a rather strange east-west gradient (whereas most countries are politically divided north-south). The east of France is more rightwing, and the west (in general) is more leftwing. Various theories surround this phenomenon - religion, Atlanticism, the Revolution, etc

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

Oh come on. He was facing an army that had literally burnt its boats, that was in a hostile country, that basically had one shot to win. They may have got lucky with the shot in the eye but the fact is that a more cautious approach was guaranteed to win and Harold blew it. He needed to be a Varrus and William would have been in deep doodoo.

Do you mean Fabius who wore down Hannibal ?

Or Varro who lost at Cannae ?

Varrus was the Roman who lost Germany for Augustus.

Sorry it’s Varocusus, who I think you have called Fabius. Was he not the one who gave us the word prevaricate?

I've not heard that before, it would be interesting if that was the origin of prevaricate but he certainly gave us 'Fabian Strategy'.

Though much of the credit should go to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Claudius_Marcellus

SeanT said:

Charles said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of couryou may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

For all I know the pound might not move very much at all. It seems to have stabilised despite the increasingly funereal mood music emanating from the Brexit negotiations.

I made a nict upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

I am not putting my hard earned on it but I do agree with this. I think everything short of a nuclear winter is priced into Sterling at the moment and there is a lot of upside out of a mere disaster.

If I was a billionaire I'd be looking at London property. It is now in an unprecedented period of stagnation, or decline (in some parts) all of which is based on Brexit uncertainty. Almost ANY outcome (maybe even no deal) will remove the uncertainty, and make it desirable again (especially if the pounds falls further).

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only if you were a billionaire with aspirations to become a millionaire. And in such a case you would have more fun buying a big yacht or a private jet.

The F

But who knows, maybe the Brexit-loathing FT is right, and London is about to be Tokyo in the 1990s. As I say, if I had a billion I;d bet against them, but as I barely have a million and I am already heavily invested (in my own small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

My brother is conservative in his strategy

But 12m ago he reduced his risk exposure to London property from 66% to 50% - effectively pricing in a 25% fall in prices.

Parts of prime central London have already fallen 25%. Question is whether they will go significantly further. If there is a Deal or Remain/Revoke I think def not. No Deal, not sure.

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

asjohnstone said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Why the Irish don't abandon their failed republic and restore the queen of Ireland to her throne is beyond me, it'd solve so many problems

The mystery to me is why we think there is any benefit whatsoever from holding onto the six counties.

Polling shows time and again that most mainland Brits, certainly most English people, don't give a fuck about Ulster (in the nicest possible way) and would be quite content for Ireland to reunify.

I should add that I am not one of them: I am a Brit and a Celt and I think the whole nation benefits from being four nations.

But I have to accept most of my fellow Englishmen and women do not share my attachment.

The Irish attitude to reunification is equally intriguing: they desire it in a spiritual, St Augustine-and-celibacy kind of way, but when asked how they feel about it happening NOW then they quail. At least that's the mood I pick up from their media, which I have been following recently

I've also noted that the Irish still suffer a martyr complex, despite benefiting intensely from the EU, and the UK's generosity therein.
e.g. Varadkar recently claimed that Ireland was being "victimised" by Brexit.

You what? The UK wishes to be independent, and somehow that makes Ireland a "victim"? Fuck off.

The northern Irish to me seem to have the attitude of expats who by some quirk of history are still living here.

I expect Americans would be similar if their ancestors had neglected to exterminate the natives.

American history about the revolution is still absurdly mythological and hyberbolic.

They portray the Redcoats as Nazis (usually with "baddie" music playing, to ram the point home) and the Patriots as heroic and noble farmers fighting impossible odds.

I would have thought someone would have tried a revisionist line over there by now. But, no. None.

SouthamObserver said:

I had no idea property prices were slumping in London. The newly combined, 400 person business I’m now part of is looking for offices in the centre of town and the pricing is astronomical. Should we be holding off?

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

Oh come on. He was facing an army that had literally burnt its boats, that was in a hostile country, that basically had one shot to win. They may have got lucky with the shot in the eye but the fact is that a more cautious approach was guaranteed to win and Harold blew it. He needed to be a Varrus and William would have been in deep doodoo.

Do you mean Fabius who wore down Hannibal ?

Or Varro who lost at Cannae ?

Varrus was the Roman who lost Germany for Augustus.

Sorry it’s Varocusus, who I think you have called Fabius. Was he not the one who gave us the word prevaricate?

I've not heard that before, it would be interesting if that was the origin of prevaricate but he certainly gave us 'Fabian Strategy'.

Though much of the credit should go to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Claudius_Marcellus

PB proving even more educational than usual tonight. Certainly a Fabian strategy would surely have defeated William in fairly short order. Harold may have been a good tactician but he was a poor strategist.

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might

Howgo?

Wh.

I£/$ and £/€.

I disaster.

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only ivate jet.

The Fwn small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

The biggest mistake investors make is failing to realise that everything is cyclical. When I was young, people who succeeded in life moved out of London, and many of its central districts were seen as very unattractive places to live. Over the past twenty years or so London has enjoyed a tremendous boom, driven significantly by overseas investors seeing its property as an attractive risk free investment. But London has already passed its peak, is becoming less attractive to live as family communties are replaced by dormitories for the youth of the world, and Brexit will accelerate the trend for foreign disinvestment. Yes, Tokyo in 1990 is a very apt comparison. Back then, there were plenty of people who thought you couldn't lose buying property there.

If you have that million, buy somewhere in the countryside with genuine quality of life.

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might another round of devaluation post-Brexit help, simply by making UK exports more attractive and reducing our ability to purchase imported goods?

Of couryou may be able to afford luxuries - short of a lottery win or a bequest - is to buy them all on credit.)

How low can it go?

Who can it negotiations.

I made a nict upward bounce in £/$ and £/€.

I disaster.

If I was a

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only ivate jet.

The Fwn small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

snip

If you have that million, buy somewhere in the countryside with genuine quality of life.

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might

Howgo?

Wh.

I£/$ and £/€.

I disaster.

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only ivate jet.

The Fwn small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

The biggest mistake investors make is failing to realise that everything

If you have that million, buy somewhere in the countryside with genuine quality of life.

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

That a lot of young and relatively poor Vietnamese wanting to come to London is key to its better properties continuing to appreciate in value is an interesting theory, for sure.

What if what London is progressively becoming makes it a less attractive place for better off people to live? As happened during the earlier part of our lifetimes.

edb said:

Lots of London specific factors I think. I wouldn't read too much into the brexit angle, although surely people are putting off big decisions until there is a bit more clarity.

I do wonder whether "prime" London has just moved and it is taking decades for people to fully notice. It hasn't made sense for anyone normal and under 40 to move to (insert traditionally posh bit of London here) for a long long time.

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

asjohnstone said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Why the Irish don't abandon their failed republic and restore the queen of Ireland to her throne is beyond me, it'd solve so many problems

The mystery to me is why we think there is any benefit whatsoever from holding onto the six counties.

Polling shows time and again that most mainland Brits, certainly most English people, don't give a fuck about Ulster (in the nicest possible way) and would be quite content for Ireland to reunify.

I should add that I am not one of them: I am a Brit and a Celt and I think the whole nation benefits from being four nations.

But I have to accept most of my fellow Englishmen and women do not share my attachment.

The Irish attitude to reunification is equally intriguing: they desire it in a spiritual, St Augustine-and-celibacy kind of way, but when asked how they feel about it happening NOW then they quail. At least that's the mood I pick up from their media, which I have been following recently

I've

You what? The UK wishes to be independent, and somehow that makes Ireland a "victim"? Fuck off.

The northern Irish to me seem to have the attitude of expats who by some quirk of history are still living here.

I expect Americans would be similar if their ancestors had neglected to exterminate the natives.

American history about the revolution is still absurdly mythological and hyberbolic.

They portray the Redcoats as Nazis (usually with "baddie" music playing, to ram the point home) and the Patriots as heroic and noble farmers fighting impossible odds.

I would have thought someone would have tried a revisionist line over there by now. But, no. None.

They also conveniently skip over the American Loyalists. The American Revolution was substantially a Civil War, and there was considerable sympathy on these islands for the revolutionaries too.

The troops of Banastre Tarleton were substantially American Loyalists, not British as depicted in "The Patriot" by Mel Gibson:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Legion_(American_Revolution)

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

My brother is conservative in his strategy

But 12m ago he reduced his risk exposure to London property from 66% to 50% - effectively pricing in a 25% fall in prices.

Scanning the thread I read that as "12m years ago" and found it completely unsurprising that his financial planning would take account of such timescales.

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:

American history about the revolution is still absurdly mythological and hyberbolic.

They portray the Redcoats as Nazis (usually with "baddie" music playing, to ram the point home) and the Patriots as heroic and noble farmers fighting impossible odds.

I visited the museum of the revolution in Philadelphia recently. Worth a visit.

I had not realised the "taxation without representation" they were so miffed about was Stamp Duty. My American friends couldn't comprehend that we still pay it.

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

"Come to Birmingham, it's got a fast train to London" doesn't inspire.

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might

Howgo?

Wh.

I£/$ and £/€.

I disaster.

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only ivate jet.

The Fwn small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

The bigges

If you have that million, buy somewhere in the countryside with genuine quality of life.

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

That a lot of young and relatively poor Vietnamese wanting to come to London is key to its better properties continuing to appreciate in value is an interesting theory, for sure.

What if what London is progressively becoming makes it a less attractive place for better off people to live? As happened during the earlier part of our lifetimes.

Twit. Go to Sydney. It is full of aspiring young Vietnamese (and Sydney has been a boomtown for three decades running).

Young hardworking inventive computer-savvy pho-making high-IQ East Asian kids - like the Vietnamese (who won't mug you or blow you up or put their women in black death-shrouds) are EXACTLY the kind of migrant you want to attract, if you aspire to be a dynamic world city.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1092910377283829761

The only infrastructure needed to run the system are number plate recognition cameras on approach roads to the border itself.

But that could anger nationalists who will say it break Mrs May’s promise of no infrastructure at all.

The Fujitsu system could also be rejected by the Northern Irish who have a deep dislike of state surveillance that dates back to the Troubles era

On the one hand I get both of these. On the other hand, that'd just be bloody unreasonable if this idea were shown to be capable of working. Cameras would be too much?

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

"Come to Birmingham, it's got a fast train to London" doesn't inspire.

Speaking as someone who can see HS2 from his window I think HS2 is an insane waste of money and time. If we really want to spend eighty billion quid on transport we should build Heathrow 3 tomorrow and improve transport across the North with fast regular electric trains from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds and back, turning the great northern cities into one conurbation.

Shaving 20 minutes off the train time from London to Brum is utterly pointless and, as you say, will merely encourage more people to commute to London and work in London, from further out.

Also, driverless electric cars. They will be ubiquitous by the time HS2 is finished. The whole thing is nuts. I genuinely don't understand why ANYONE wants it.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

Well, i am off to bed shortly. But if anyone wants to know why I am so frustrated and fed up at matters in education, here is a model answer to a question about the Battle of Hastings from AQA. This is quoted from the actual mark scheme that was used last year to mark real GCSEs.

'The interpretation is convincing because it acknowledges Harold’s possibly daring brilliance as a commander. To have beaten off the first invasion at Stamford Bridge and then taken up a good defensive position on Senlac Hill blocking the road to London. He had roughly the same number of troops as William and deployed them with a shield wall. His troops lasted nearly the whole day to hold their position and beat off the Normans.'

That's for the PERFECT answer. The model that got 8 out of 8.

And do you know what's frightening?

That's still not the most epic fuck up from the new exams. Amanda Spielmann buggering up the marking criteria because she's so dumb she can't count to nine still takes first.

Good night.

FFS that’s depressing. It’s like saying we won the American war of independence apart from all the defeats and our eventual surrender.

Not really. I am afraid ydoethur is showing he is a teacher first and a historian second. Most historians of the period recognise that Harold was indeed a great commander. Faced with an almost impossible situation of fighting off two invasions in succession - one against an army which had already beaten part of his army before he arrived - he did far better than many might have expected. That he lost was not down to his being a poor commander but down to circumstances largely beyond his control. It would be fair to say he was a poor diplomat perhaps but certainly not a poor commander.

ydoethur said:

stodge said:

williamglenn said:

This is hysterical nonsense. The EEC always had free movement from its founding with the Treaty of Rome. As far as I can make out, if you object to anything concrete it's really the eastern expansion of the EU.

As usual, it seems you need a history lesson. When we (along with Eire and Denmark) joined in 1973 we brought some quite poor areas into the then EEC. Areas like Cornwall, the Scottish Highlands and of course the Republic were relatively poor compared to the rest of the EEC at that time. The largesse available went to these areas - Cornwall did very well in terms of infrastructure from Objective One funding as did Wales and the Highlands.

The admission of Greece in 1981 and later Portugal and Spain changed things. The accession of these countries changed the economic dynamic by bringing in areas which were relatively even poorer than the poorer areas of the UK so money went from the EEC to support rural Spain, Greece and Portugal and the previously well funded areas of the UK lost out.

Fast forward to the accession of the post Communist countries and in to the EEC/EU came a raft of even more impoverished areas. The Polish economy in GDP terms in 1988 was barely a third of that of Sweden. That unbalanced and distorted the EU and led to the north and west spaying for the east and to an extent the south.

The cynic might argue it also created a large pool of cheap labour for the richer economies to draw on but for various reasons conservatives, socialists and liberals were all in favour of expanding the EU - I wasn't. I'd have encouraged investment in the post-Communist countries and allowed a much longer transition period before full admission but that wasn't the thinking.

Is Greece poorer than the inland areas of North Wales? Or indeed Anglesey? Serious question.

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

"Come to Birmingham, it's got a fast train to London" doesn't inspire.

Speaking as someone who can see HS2 from his window I think HS2 is an insane waste of money and time. If we really want to spend eighty billion quid on transport we should build Heathrow 3 tomorrow and improve transport across the North with fast regular electric trains from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds and back, turning the great northern cities into one conurbation.

Shaving 20 minutes off the train time from London to Brum is utterly pointless and, as you say, will merely encourage more people to commute to London and work in London, from further out.

Also, driverless electric cars. They will be ubiquitous by the time HS2 is finished. The whole thing is nuts. I genuinely don't understand why ANYONE wants it.

There's lots of vested interests making lots of money from it.

Rail capacity going north from London is already full. So we need new railways, and if we re going to build one, it may as well be a modern fast one. How complicated is that to understand?

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

stodge said:

williamglenn said:

This is hysterical nonsense. The EEC always had free movement from its founding with the Treaty of Rome. As far as I can make out, if you object to anything concrete it's really the eastern expansion of the EU.

As usual, it seems you need a history lesson. When we (along with Eire and Denmark) joined in 1973 we brought some quite poor areas into the then EEC. Areas like Cornwall, the Scottish Highlands and of course the Republic were relatively poor compared to the rest of the EEC at that time. The largesse available went to these areas - Cornwall did very well in terms of infrastructure from Objective One funding as did Wales and the Highlands.

The admission of Greece in 1981 and later Portugal and Spain changed things. The accession of these countries changed the economic dynamic by bringing in areas which were relatively even poorer than the poorer areas of the UK so money went from the EEC to support rural Spain, Greece and Portugal and the previously well funded areas of the UK lost out.

Fast forward to the accession of the post Communist countries and in to the EEC/EU came a raft of even more impoverished areas. The Polish economy in GDP terms in 1988 was barely a third of that of Sweden. That unbalanced and distorted the EU and led to the north and west spaying for the east and to an extent the south.

The cynic might argue it also created a large pool of cheap labour for the richer economies to draw on but for various reasons conservatives, socialists and liberals were all in favour of expanding the EU - I wasn't. I'd have encouraged investment in the post-Communist countries and allowed a much longer transition period before full admission but that wasn't the thinking.

Is Greece poorer than the inland areas of North Wales? Or indeed Anglesey? Serious question.

It would be today.

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

_Anazina_ said:

You are assuming that we’d recreate BR, which there is no good reason to do. Other countries manage perfectly well with their railways in the public sector - why are we so down on our own abilities? It’s embarrassing

Because our record of public ownership has been frankly atrocious. I don't trust the Government (any Government of any party in this country) to get basic state things like collecting taxes right. Why on earth would I want to let them within a million miles of the railways again?

That, and what's the first thing that happens if Labour renationalises the railways? They'll freeze the fares to appease angry commuters. And who are the angry commuters? Disproportionately, they're wealthy or comfortably-off workers, and disproportionately they're concentrated in the South-East of England.

Ergo, bringing the railways back into public ownership = yet more sweeties for the richest part of the country, which I thought was the sort of thing we were meant to be trying to get away from.

And then, going forward, either the trains are starved of investment because most Government spending increases are set aside for the NHS and pensions, or if it does happen it therefore comes increasingly from general taxation rather than from fare revenues. Better trains for comfortably-off commuters would end up coming out of everybody's income, including that of a great many poor people and those in rural areas who may seldom (if ever) travel by train, but will get to watch more of their money being spent so that the aforementioned commuters may enjoy the privilege of an improved railway without having to cough up more for their tickets.

Finite resources would be better spent on bus services, which are dying on their wheels in most of the country outside of London.

Let the failing parts of the country rot. They voted to sabotage the successful bits through Brexit. Let them figure out a way to recover that doesn’t involve sponging off the bits of the country that they hate.

Oh god, your id has returned. Take a xanax.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47055499

If there’s any kind of social compact, which I doubt, it requires society’s losers not actively to impede society’s dynamos. To do so and then to bleat that the money is not flowing enough is a bit much for me.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might

Howgo?

Wh.

I£/$ and £/€.

I disaster.

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only ivate jet.

The Fwn small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

The biggest mistake investors make is failing to realise that everything

If you have that million, buy somewhere in the countryside with genuine quality of life.

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

That a lot of young and relatively poor Vietnamese wanting to come to London is key to its better properties continuing to appreciate in value is an interesting theory, for sure.

What if what London is progressively becoming makes it a less attractive place for better off people to live? As happened during the earlier part of our lifetimes.

The purpose of Brexit is surely not to open London to young Vietnamese wanting to experience European culture.

Indeed that is almost the precise antithesis of what the Brexit vote was about.

No it isn't. It was about saving Britain from being inevitably absorbed into a federal European state and preserving its political independence.

Please, let's no go round this well worn old circle yet again.

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

"Come to Birmingham, it's got a fast train to London" doesn't inspire.

Speaking as someone who can see HS2 from his window I think HS2 is an insane waste of money and time. If we really want to spend eighty billion quid on transport we should build Heathrow 3 tomorrow and improve transport across the North with fast regular electric trains from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds and back, turning the great northern cities into one conurbation.

Shaving 20 minutes off the train time from London to Brum is utterly pointless and, as you say, will merely encourage more people to commute to London and work in London, from further out.

Also, driverless electric cars. They will be ubiquitous by the time HS2 is finished. The whole thing is nuts. I genuinely don't understand why ANYONE wants it.

There's lots of vested interests making lots of money from it.

Rail capacity going north from London is already full. So we need new railways, and if we re going to build one, it may as well be a modern fast one. How complicated is that to understand?

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

asjohnstone said:

williamglenn said:

The Spectator floats the idea of holding an Irish unification referendum to solve the border issue.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/a-referendum-on-irish-unity-might-be-the-best-way-to-solve-the-brexit-border-issue/

Why the Irish don't abandon their failed republic and restore the queen of Ireland to her throne is beyond me, it'd solve so many problems

The mystery to me is why we think there is any benefit whatsoever from holding onto the six counties.

Polling shows time and again that most mainland Brits, certainly most English people, don't give a fuck about Ulster (in the nicest possible way) and would be quite content for Ireland to reunify.

I should add that I am not one of them: I am a Brit and a Celt and I think the whole nation benefits from being four nations.

But I have to accept most of my fellow Englishmen and women do not share my attachment.

The Irish attitude to reunification is equally intriguing: they desire it in a spiritual, St Augustine-and-celibacy kind of way, but when asked how they feel about it happening NOW then they quail. At least that's the mood I pick up from their media, which I have been following recently

I've also noted that the Irish still suffer a martyr complex, despite benefiting intensely from the EU, and the UK's generosity therein.
e.g. Varadkar recently claimed that Ireland was being "victimised" by Brexit.

You what? The UK wishes to be independent, and somehow that makes Ireland a "victim"? Fuck off.

The northern Irish to me seem to have the attitude of expats who by some quirk of history are still living here.

I expect Americans would be similar if their ancestors had neglected to exterminate the natives.

American history about the revolution is still absurdly mythological and hyberbolic.

They portray the Redcoats as Nazis (usually with "baddie" music playing, to ram the point home) and the Patriots as heroic and noble farmers fighting impossible odds.

I would have thought someone would have tried a revisionist line over there by now. But, no. None.

They also conveniently skip over the American Loyalists. The American Revolution was substantially a Civil War, and there was considerable sympathy on these islands for the revolutionaries too.

The troops of Banastre Tarleton were substantially American Loyalists, not British as depicted in "The Patriot" by Mel Gibson:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Legion_(American_Revolution)

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the
football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Might

Howgo?

Wh.

I£/$ and £/€.

I disaster.

Sadly I'm not a billionaire so I'm thinking of buying a very small plot of land in Spain, just for the giggles (and the sun).

Only ivate jet.

The Fwn small way) in London property, I can't take the risk.

The biggest mistake investors make is failing to realise that everything

If you have that million, buy somewhere in the countryside with genuine quality of life.

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

That a lot of young and relatively poor Vietnamese wanting to come to London is key to its better properties continuing to appreciate in value is an interesting theory, for sure.

What if what London is progressively becoming makes it a less attractive place for better off people to live? As happened during the earlier part of our lifetimes.

The purpose of Brexit is surely not to open London to young Vietnamese wanting to experience European culture.

Indeed that is almost the precise antithesis of what the Brexit vote was about.

No it isn't. It was about saving Britain from being inevitably absorbed into a federal European state and preserving its political independence.

Please, let's no go round this well worn old circle yet again.

Dislike of London, and other Metropolitan areas with their cultural diversity, and strong economies based around a knowledge economy was just a part of the rancid, jealous rage of Brexitism, but a fairly core one. Or do you really think that the purpose was to kick out the Poles so that they could make way for the Vietnamese?

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

SeanT said:

Maybe I am biassed, as a Londoner, but I think this is bollocks. Why do I think this? Here's one reason: I've just come back from a Times travel gig in Vietnam (which is fascinating, by the way, and has utterly brilliant, phenomenal food, arguably the best cuisine in the world).

I met lots of young

Tokyo is the 90s was a city fiercely resistant to immigration, speaking a language spoken by no one else, and far away from the global centres of culture.

London is not Tokyo. It will bounce back.

That a lot of young and relatively poor Vietnamese wanting to come to London is key to its better properties continuing to appreciate in value is an interesting theory, for sure.

What if what London is progressively becoming makes it a less attractive place for better off people to live? As happened during the earlier part of our lifetimes.

The purpose of Brexit is surely not to open London to young Vietnamese wanting to experience European culture.

Indeed that is almost the precise antithesis of what the Brexit vote was about.

No it isn't. It was about saving Britain from being inevitably absorbed into a federal European state and preserving its political independence.

Please, let's no go round this well worn old circle yet again.

Dislike of London, and other Metropolitan areas with their cultural diversity, and strong economies based around a knowledge economy was just a part of the rancid, jealous rage of Brexitism, but a fairly core one. Or do you really think that the purpose was to kick out the Poles so that they could make way for the Vietnamese?

Casino_Royale said:

_Anazina_ said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the
football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

Nah. I used to think that too, that being connected to London might spread its sociocultural qualities afield. The truth is more utilitarian. High speed rail is just a quicker way of getting to the greatest city in the world.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

You can easily test this by making the counter argument: is it better when regional cities are even more poorly connected grounds it would stop talent, energy and commerce leaching out to London?

In reality, there is a multiplier effect.

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

I met lots of young and dynamic Vietnamese people (they are all young and dynamic). Where did they want to study and live for a while? London. They weren't being polite to me as a Brit, they were being honest: they wanted to experience a world class English speaking city (where they could improve their English), but they also wanted close access to European culture, art, history. There is only one city which can provide this, and it is London, for all of Dublin's charms.

I think tapping into this effect would be a good thing for regional development strategies to focus on so that it's not just about London.

Even the premier league exerts a strange kind of soft power. Wolverhampton is famous in China because a Chinese rock band are fans of the football team and made a song about them.

That's what HS2 is supposed to be about.

Casino_Royale said:

Normandy is utterly moribund. It's very sad.