politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Bernie Sanders complicates the betting on November’s US Se
Options
Comments
-
Rubbish. Part of the solution to climate change is governments making businesses and consumers pay for negative externalities, rather than dumping the extremely high true costs on everybody and especially our children and grandchildren. Why the hell should they subsidise (and when I say subsidise I mean be condemned to living in a nightmare) frequent flyers?Philip_Thompson said:
Jet Zero is a great idea and something I've called for on this site before (but without thinking up that term, what a great term wish I had thought of it).RochdalePioneers said:Epic speech by Shagger. A BuildBuildBuild lectern that really needed a spirit level. A scything of red tape implemented by tying business up in mega red tape for Brexit. A Banging. Of. The. Lectern. every third sentence. A #JetZero plane powered by Boris spaff presumably. A bonfire of planning regulations allowing Tory party donors to build more houses. Enough money for roads to build 2 miles of motorway and enough money for schools to give them £2k a year for paint.
I'm tearing up - I'm that inspired.
Idiot Marxists and media types have been attacking aviation under the name of climate change. The solution to climate change is not and never has been us turning into hermits rolling back the industrial revolution while the rest of the world burns coal and moves on without us.
The solution to climate change has only ever been and only ever could be science and technological advancements. Reducing aviation is not a solution to climate change when the Chinese are building a new airport every week.
Inventing an electric or #JetZero plane and exporting that across the globe would be tremendous for climate change.1 -
Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.CorrectHorseBattery said:3 -
-
I don’t understand. One moment you tell us that Twitter is irrelevant, and the next you seem to get very upset that those “irrelevant” tweets are not saying what you want them to say.Sandpit said:
As a starting point, actually looking at the announcements made today and being constructive and informative in their analysis of them - as opposed to mindless and sarcastic oppositionism?Gallowgate said:
And what role is that?Sandpit said:
That the media are more interested in furiously Tweet-wanking at each other about how evil the PM is, rather than playing their role in helping the country back to economic growth after the crisis?Scott_xP said:Is he on the bottle already?
ttps://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1277915563621257218
What the fuck are we supposed to make of this jingoistic crap?
You clearly are very triggered.0 -
0
-
On covid, i think the narrative by many governments has been wrong. We started with the much reported 80% only get mild symptoms, when mild can mean the worst flu you ever had, to everybody is dying now to only old and fat people die.
When we need repeated public warning that not dying can still include extremely serious life long conditions, even in younger people.0 -
The suit, fair point. If I were a floating voter that might give me pause for thought.isam said:...
"UNDER THE MOON OF LOVE with my PRETTY LITTLE ANGEL EYES!"kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:
I just happen to think it is one of the biggest publicity seeking goofs a politician has ever made. Sorry to all those who disagree with me if my making the point repeatedly upsets you, but that's how it is.
I was told I was the only person thinking this, but I was told BLM weren't anti Semitic marxists who want to defund the police a couple of days ago, and Sir Keir was having to distance himself from them for just those reasons yesterday. So when others back me up, I like to link to it
But otherwise? Hardly. There is a small minority of the population whose instinctive reaction to seeing it is a genuine and profound unease - anger even - that the Labour leader is demeaning himself by "kneeling to the Black Man" but these are votes which would be hard for Labour to get in any event and it's arguable whether they even want them.
Of course I could be wrong about it being a small minority. In which case there is a problem - that Labour can't win elections without pandering to racism.0 -
Bring back the airship. Uses a quarter the energy or less per mile and could be electrified today with no further advances.Philip_Thompson said:
Jet Zero is a great idea and something I've called for on this site before (but without thinking up that term, what a great term wish I had thought of it).RochdalePioneers said:Epic speech by Shagger. A BuildBuildBuild lectern that really needed a spirit level. A scything of red tape implemented by tying business up in mega red tape for Brexit. A Banging. Of. The. Lectern. every third sentence. A #JetZero plane powered by Boris spaff presumably. A bonfire of planning regulations allowing Tory party donors to build more houses. Enough money for roads to build 2 miles of motorway and enough money for schools to give them £2k a year for paint.
I'm tearing up - I'm that inspired.
Idiot Marxists and media types have been attacking aviation under the name of climate change. The solution to climate change is not and never has been us turning into hermits rolling back the industrial revolution while the rest of the world burns coal and moves on without us.
The solution to climate change has only ever been and only ever could be science and technological advancements. Reducing aviation is not a solution to climate change when the Chinese are building a new airport every week.
Inventing an electric or #JetZero plane and exporting that across the globe would be tremendous for climate change.
Yes, it takes a little longer, but you get there in more comfort and far more environmentally friendly.
https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/our-aircraft/airlander-10/luxury-travel/
Midway between airliners and cruise liners. Say, 24 hours to Florida from London, and the travel being enjoyable and part of the trip.0 -
Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.NickPalmer said:
I don't agree. For family support reasons that I won't go into here I need to live in relatively cheap rented accommodation, and have a one-bed cottage semi where I can indeed more or less touch the walls of the kitchen. I'm grateful that I found it for £1000/month and it wasn't easy. This area has very large numbers of large houses for sale which linger on the market for ages, and small numbers of smaller places for rent which are snapped up in days - it's obvious that the latter is the shortage and I know numerous local people who say their kids can't move out and still be local because they simply can't afford it.Philip_Thompson said:
"Affordable homes" is an utter misnomer and shouldn't be a planning requirement.Scott_xP said:
The country doesn't need more homes which are too tiny. The country doesn't need more homes where you can stand in the kitchen and touch all 4 walls without moving.
The country needs more homes and the emphasis should be on GOOD homes. If those homes are not affordable then people who can afford them will get those homes and others can move up the housing ladder into the homes that they have vacated.
Constantly adding trash at the bottom should not be the ambition.
In other areas it may be different - perhaps, say, South Shields is short of larger high-quality family homes? Essentially I think the local council should be able to determine what is needed and planning law should be adjusted to enable them to give genuine priority to that. If people aren't happy they can vote them out.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.0 -
Thanks. I was simply translating the SVT (Swedish BBC) report, so their journos have clearly been negligible their research.Nigelb said:
Hardly the first case. There were reports as far back as April:StuartDickson said:Coronavirus can attack brain?
Breaking news from Sweden: a female patient with mild coronavirus symptoms became unconscious and was admitted to hospital. There it was discovered that she had severe inflammation of the brain (encephalitis). It is strongly suspected that coronavirus caused the inflammation, which would be the first case in the world.
She has survived but she has chronic brain damage.
Encephalitis as a clinical manifestation of COVID-19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146652/
We know for sure that it attacks the olfactory bulb, and there ia considerable evidence of its crossing the blood brain barrier;
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-infection
We have some idea of the overall fatality rate of this thing (somewhere around 0.5%, probably - but varying across different populations), but I don't think we have any good idea at all of the overall incidence of long term health consequences for those who have 'recovered' from infection.
I agree. We have been obsessed by Covid19 deaths, but what about all the chronic health problems for survivors and all the other health problems, especially mental health, for everyone else.1 -
Yeah.glw said:
Some of these "it doesn't affect people like me" types are going to find it has affected them and given them a lifelong chronic health condition.Andy_Cooke said:
Yeah, we've known this for a while. It can make you comatose, give you brain damage, make you prone to dementia, coagulate your blood so it's more likely to give you a stroke or heart attack in the longer run, cause diabetes, and attack lung function long-term.StuartDickson said:Coronavirus can attack brain?
Breaking news from Sweden: a female patient with mild coronavirus symptoms became unconscious and was admitted to hospital. There it was discovered that she had severe inflammation of the brain (encephalitis). It is strongly suspected that coronavirus caused the inflammation, which would be the first case in the world.
She has survived but she has chronic brain damage.
All of which counts as "zero effect" to some people who want to insist that those who are under-[insert age category that means they're outside it] are all-but unaffected by it. Because they are less likely to actually die.
Here's a story about a 35-year-old who was also "unaffected" by it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53197880
Comatose for seven weeks, looked very likely to die, and in hospital for more than two months.
But not in the death statistics, so counts as "unaffected" by some...
Ironically, the "I don't have an underlying health condition" will, for some, become:
"Delete don't; replace with didn't, 'cos you do now."0 -
@MarqueeMark Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.CorrectHorseBattery said:
--------------
Did Johnson plumb in the washing machine himself? The hoses look a bit high up...
1 -
You have an over active imagination. We disagree on politics, you should be able to handle that without needing to resort to that kind of nonsenseOnlyLivingBoy said:
It's a thin line between love and hate. I imagine he has a wipe clean version of the picture to hand. Maybe the pervy version where Johnson has him on a leash? That seems to tick a lot of Tory boxes.kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:0 -
SNP zero? Are they absolutely sure about that?CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
What?Gallowgate said:
I don’t understand. One moment you tell us that Twitter is irrelevant, and the next you seem to get very upset that those “irrelevant” tweets are not saying what you want them to say.Sandpit said:
As a starting point, actually looking at the announcements made today and being constructive and informative in their analysis of them - as opposed to mindless and sarcastic oppositionism?Gallowgate said:
And what role is that?Sandpit said:
That the media are more interested in furiously Tweet-wanking at each other about how evil the PM is, rather than playing their role in helping the country back to economic growth after the crisis?Scott_xP said:Is he on the bottle already?
ttps://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1277915563621257218
What the fuck are we supposed to make of this jingoistic crap?
You clearly are very triggered.
I have made no comment about Twitter, my comment is on the standard of political journalism - which seems to collectively think that childish insults and sarcasm aimed at the PM on the day of a major speech, are a valid substitute for the expert analysis which the people expect them to provide.0 -
-
Ironically this is a policy for Southern England. There is no shortage of homes in the North East. not only can you buy old terraced houses for less than 80k in some parts of Newcastle and Sunderland, there has been tens of thousands of new homes built in the last 10 years alone. I myself am living in one.
There is nothing wrong with the planning system here.0 -
Oh, I don't know. After the way he nationalised the private health sector and discovered the magic money forest, I was getting quite hopeful about Comrade Boris.dixiedean said:Boris isn't a Communist. That's a relief.
1 -
Who do you think is paying for the NHS?CorrectHorseBattery said:3 -
Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.0
-
That “journalism” is just tweets. I thought these tweets didn't matter?Sandpit said:
What?Gallowgate said:
I don’t understand. One moment you tell us that Twitter is irrelevant, and the next you seem to get very upset that those “irrelevant” tweets are not saying what you want them to say.Sandpit said:
As a starting point, actually looking at the announcements made today and being constructive and informative in their analysis of them - as opposed to mindless and sarcastic oppositionism?Gallowgate said:
And what role is that?Sandpit said:
That the media are more interested in furiously Tweet-wanking at each other about how evil the PM is, rather than playing their role in helping the country back to economic growth after the crisis?Scott_xP said:Is he on the bottle already?
ttps://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1277915563621257218
What the fuck are we supposed to make of this jingoistic crap?
You clearly are very triggered.
I have made no comment about Twitter, my comment is on the standard of political journalism - which seems to collectively think that childish insults and sarcasm aimed at the PM on the day of a major speech, are a valid substitute for the expert analysis which the people expect them to provide.
It’s not like BBC News or any newspaper is printing the “sarcasm” is there?
Get a grip ffs.0 -
The Mayor of Leicester?CorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
0 -
No blue tick. Is that a legitimate of fake account?StuartDickson said:
SNP zero? Are they absolutely sure about that?CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
For some, depending on the rules, some proper impartial reporting. Not like the BBC hatchet job on Panorama last night.Gallowgate said:
And what role is that?Sandpit said:
That the media are more interested in furiously Tweet-wanking at each other about how evil the PM is, rather than playing their role in helping the country back to economic growth after the crisis?Scott_xP said:Is he on the bottle already?
ttps://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1277915563621257218
What the fuck are we supposed to make of this jingoistic crap?
For others, selling newspapers unfortunately counts as getting things going again...2 -
Try Times Radio.. Its slightly different to the bore that is the Today Programme,.Gallowgate said:
That “journalism” is just tweets. I thought these tweets didn't matter?Sandpit said:
What?Gallowgate said:
I don’t understand. One moment you tell us that Twitter is irrelevant, and the next you seem to get very upset that those “irrelevant” tweets are not saying what you want them to say.Sandpit said:
As a starting point, actually looking at the announcements made today and being constructive and informative in their analysis of them - as opposed to mindless and sarcastic oppositionism?Gallowgate said:
And what role is that?Sandpit said:
That the media are more interested in furiously Tweet-wanking at each other about how evil the PM is, rather than playing their role in helping the country back to economic growth after the crisis?Scott_xP said:Is he on the bottle already?
ttps://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1277915563621257218
What the fuck are we supposed to make of this jingoistic crap?
You clearly are very triggered.
I have made no comment about Twitter, my comment is on the standard of political journalism - which seems to collectively think that childish insults and sarcasm aimed at the PM on the day of a major speech, are a valid substitute for the expert analysis which the people expect them to provide.
It’s not like BBC News or any newspaper is printing the “sarcasm” is there?
Get a grip ffs.1 -
Lets hazard a guess, you didn't see nor hear itCorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
0 -
I think it's just a polling average. Not sure why the SNP are excluded, but they probably aren't at zero.Philip_Thompson said:
No blue tick. Is that a legitimate of fake account?StuartDickson said:
SNP zero? Are they absolutely sure about that?CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
I’d love for you to go to Blyth Valley and argue on the doorsteps that residents should clap for bankers, capitalists, and financiers.RobD said:
Who do you think is paying for the NHS?CorrectHorseBattery said:1 -
I think Philip is broadly right here. We need more homes. We need homes to be cheaper. Trying to achieve the second objective by piggybacking the first objective hasnt worked - and there are lots of alternative policies that would bring about cheaper homes, the underlying problem is that the voters who turn out most regularly are older house owners who for (understandable) reasons support high house price policies and governments.Philip_Thompson said:
Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.NickPalmer said:
I don't agree. For family support reasons that I won't go into here I need to live in relatively cheap rented accommodation, and have a one-bed cottage semi where I can indeed more or less touch the walls of the kitchen. I'm grateful that I found it for £1000/month and it wasn't easy. This area has very large numbers of large houses for sale which linger on the market for ages, and small numbers of smaller places for rent which are snapped up in days - it's obvious that the latter is the shortage and I know numerous local people who say their kids can't move out and still be local because they simply can't afford it.Philip_Thompson said:
"Affordable homes" is an utter misnomer and shouldn't be a planning requirement.Scott_xP said:
The country doesn't need more homes which are too tiny. The country doesn't need more homes where you can stand in the kitchen and touch all 4 walls without moving.
The country needs more homes and the emphasis should be on GOOD homes. If those homes are not affordable then people who can afford them will get those homes and others can move up the housing ladder into the homes that they have vacated.
Constantly adding trash at the bottom should not be the ambition.
In other areas it may be different - perhaps, say, South Shields is short of larger high-quality family homes? Essentially I think the local council should be able to determine what is needed and planning law should be adjusted to enable them to give genuine priority to that. If people aren't happy they can vote them out.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.1 -
It's a dumb suggestion, and I doubt it was meant seriously. The point still stands however.Gallowgate said:
I’d love for you to go to Blyth Valley and argue on the doorsteps that residents should clap for bankers, capitalists, and financiers.RobD said:
Who do you think is paying for the NHS?CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
I'm not a Communist is going to be memorable0
-
CorrectHorseBattery said:
Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
What, Starmer pretending he'd never heard of BLM yesterday after he knelt before them?
That was pretty embarrassing, all right!-1 -
I see Keir Starmer is still living rent-free inside your head.BluestBlue said:CorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
What, Starmer pretending he'd never heard of BLM yesterday after he knelt before them?
That was pretty embarrassing, all right!0 -
They are building so many in the South, I wonder who is going to live in then, never mind where the infrastructure is coming from....noneoftheabove said:
I think Philip is broadly right here. We need more homes. We need homes to be cheaper. Trying to achieve the second objective by piggybacking the first objective hasnt worked - and there are lots of alternative policies that would bring about cheaper homes, the underlying problem is that the voters who turn out most regularly are older house owners who for (understandable) reasons support high house price policies and governments.Philip_Thompson said:
Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.NickPalmer said:
I don't agree. For family support reasons that I won't go into here I need to live in relatively cheap rented accommodation, and have a one-bed cottage semi where I can indeed more or less touch the walls of the kitchen. I'm grateful that I found it for £1000/month and it wasn't easy. This area has very large numbers of large houses for sale which linger on the market for ages, and small numbers of smaller places for rent which are snapped up in days - it's obvious that the latter is the shortage and I know numerous local people who say their kids can't move out and still be local because they simply can't afford it.Philip_Thompson said:
"Affordable homes" is an utter misnomer and shouldn't be a planning requirement.Scott_xP said:
The country doesn't need more homes which are too tiny. The country doesn't need more homes where you can stand in the kitchen and touch all 4 walls without moving.
The country needs more homes and the emphasis should be on GOOD homes. If those homes are not affordable then people who can afford them will get those homes and others can move up the housing ladder into the homes that they have vacated.
Constantly adding trash at the bottom should not be the ambition.
In other areas it may be different - perhaps, say, South Shields is short of larger high-quality family homes? Essentially I think the local council should be able to determine what is needed and planning law should be adjusted to enable them to give genuine priority to that. If people aren't happy they can vote them out.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
0 -
That graphic yesterday showing Tory MPs miles from the nation on economic values proving itself very accurate already!CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.3 -
Build , build, build blah blah !
More guff and soundbites.0 -
That seems to be what is already happening. The majority of people, who live in large houses, would prefer to have the sort of neighbours who can also afford large houses - thus it's much easier to get planning permission for large houses than a block of flats.NickPalmer said:
I don't agree. For family support reasons that I won't go into here I need to live in relatively cheap rented accommodation, and have a one-bed cottage semi where I can indeed more or less touch the walls of the kitchen. I'm grateful that I found it for £1000/month and it wasn't easy. This area has very large numbers of large houses for sale which linger on the market for ages, and small numbers of smaller places for rent which are snapped up in days - it's obvious that the latter is the shortage and I know numerous local people who say their kids can't move out and still be local because they simply can't afford it.Philip_Thompson said:
"Affordable homes" is an utter misnomer and shouldn't be a planning requirement.Scott_xP said:
The country doesn't need more homes which are too tiny. The country doesn't need more homes where you can stand in the kitchen and touch all 4 walls without moving.
The country needs more homes and the emphasis should be on GOOD homes. If those homes are not affordable then people who can afford them will get those homes and others can move up the housing ladder into the homes that they have vacated.
Constantly adding trash at the bottom should not be the ambition.
In other areas it may be different - perhaps, say, South Shields is short of larger high-quality family homes? Essentially I think the local council should be able to determine what is needed and planning law should be adjusted to enable them to give genuine priority to that. If people aren't happy they can vote them out.0 -
Valid point. Maybe Johnson will make it to 2024? But no further.NerysHughes said:
The point is people are going to watch carnage in the Americas and Africa over the next couple of months on the news, then will look at the UK and think its not been too bad here.StuartDickson said:
But but but Philip Thompson says that you can’t compare English performance with the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is not the same size as England. Or something like that.NerysHughes said:
Do you actually watch what is going on in the rest of the world?Scott_xP said:0 -
It's funny how you think repeating the vernacular of Trump fans ('living rent-free'; 'triggered') is somehow clever and original, when it's neither...Gallowgate said:
I see Keir Starmer is still living rent-free inside your head.BluestBlue said:CorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
What, Starmer pretending he'd never heard of BLM yesterday after he knelt before them?
That was pretty embarrassing, all right!-1 -
At least I can write a coherent sentence with correct punctuation.squareroot2 said:
Lets hazard a guess, you didn't see nor hear itCorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
0 -
Yup, there are two problems in the South East.Gallowgate said:Ironically this is a policy for Southern England. There is no shortage of homes in the North East. not only can you buy old terraced houses for less than 80k in some parts of Newcastle and Sunderland, there has been tens of thousands of new homes built in the last 10 years alone. I myself am living in one.
There is nothing wrong with the planning system here.
One is that the growth of some towns and cities has reached the point where the Green Belt is utterly strangling; London is one, Cambridge is another. High density flats are literally the only things that can get built, because there is insufficient land for anything else. And if a council leader tries to tamper with the Green Belt, they might as well not bother campaigning at the next round of elections. Will of the people, innit.
The other is the way that London as a megacity has sucked the commercial and cultural life out of so much of the rest of the country. That has definite advantages, but it has big costs as well.2 -
Sorry I was only gently mocking your obsession with Keir Starmer. I will try not to upset you in the future.isam said:
You have an over active imagination. We disagree on politics, you should be able to handle that without needing to resort to that kind of nonsenseOnlyLivingBoy said:
It's a thin line between love and hate. I imagine he has a wipe clean version of the picture to hand. Maybe the pervy version where Johnson has him on a leash? That seems to tick a lot of Tory boxes.kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:1 -
Clapping for capitalists and bankers is going to be interesting to see the response to.0
-
I agree that "trickle down" approach could work in principle, but it doesn't work very well, because what happens in practice is that family X seeking to move up the ladder need the capital to sell their current home, and the buyer tends to be someone with enough savings to put down the deposit, so people on low incomes with few savings are still shut out. The real shortage is of inexpensive rented accommodation not run by slum landlords. They do exist (I'm perfectly happy with my landlady) but they're in short supply.Philip_Thompson said:Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
In the end I think we do need council housing without Right to Buy. I'm not confident that private developers will ever be around in sufficient numbers to build lots of cheap, decent places for rent, or that in our economic system that everyone will be able to buy within our lifetimes.0 -
One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.3 -
He just employs them.dixiedean said:Boris isn't a Communist. That's a relief.
1 -
Boris is building the infrastructure, he did a great job with his garden bridge and cable car, dont worry, especially as he has also found the magic money tree.squareroot2 said:
They are building so many in the South, I wonder who is going to live in then, never mind where the infrastructure is coming from....noneoftheabove said:
I think Philip is broadly right here. We need more homes. We need homes to be cheaper. Trying to achieve the second objective by piggybacking the first objective hasnt worked - and there are lots of alternative policies that would bring about cheaper homes, the underlying problem is that the voters who turn out most regularly are older house owners who for (understandable) reasons support high house price policies and governments.Philip_Thompson said:
Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.NickPalmer said:
I don't agree. For family support reasons that I won't go into here I need to live in relatively cheap rented accommodation, and have a one-bed cottage semi where I can indeed more or less touch the walls of the kitchen. I'm grateful that I found it for £1000/month and it wasn't easy. This area has very large numbers of large houses for sale which linger on the market for ages, and small numbers of smaller places for rent which are snapped up in days - it's obvious that the latter is the shortage and I know numerous local people who say their kids can't move out and still be local because they simply can't afford it.Philip_Thompson said:
"Affordable homes" is an utter misnomer and shouldn't be a planning requirement.Scott_xP said:
The country doesn't need more homes which are too tiny. The country doesn't need more homes where you can stand in the kitchen and touch all 4 walls without moving.
The country needs more homes and the emphasis should be on GOOD homes. If those homes are not affordable then people who can afford them will get those homes and others can move up the housing ladder into the homes that they have vacated.
Constantly adding trash at the bottom should not be the ambition.
In other areas it may be different - perhaps, say, South Shields is short of larger high-quality family homes? Essentially I think the local council should be able to determine what is needed and planning law should be adjusted to enable them to give genuine priority to that. If people aren't happy they can vote them out.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.0 -
Not my fault that it’s incredibly appropriate.BluestBlue said:
It's funny how you think repeating the vernacular of Trump fans ('living rent-free'; 'triggered') is somehow clever and original, when it's neither...Gallowgate said:
I see Keir Starmer is still living rent-free inside your head.BluestBlue said:CorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
What, Starmer pretending he'd never heard of BLM yesterday after he knelt before them?
That was pretty embarrassing, all right!0 -
It was a Unionist newspaper, The Herald, which illustrated the narrative. Don’t shoot the messenger.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. Across the UK the virus is coming under control with some regional variation (eg the SW and Scotland a touch faster than elsewhere) but Stuart is trying to make a narcissm of small differences distinction between England and Scotland that frankly doesn't exist.NerysHughes said:
The point is people are going to watch carnage in the Americas and Africa over the next couple of months on the news, then will look at the UK and think its not been too bad here.StuartDickson said:
But but but Philip Thompson says that you can’t compare English performance with the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is not the same size as England. Or something like that.NerysHughes said:
Do you actually watch what is going on in the rest of the world?Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/12778815589307760650 -
Well looks like you've got it so you win either way - good for you!kinabalu said:
The suit, fair point. If I were a floating voter that might give me pause for thought.isam said:...
"UNDER THE MOON OF LOVE with my PRETTY LITTLE ANGEL EYES!"kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:
I just happen to think it is one of the biggest publicity seeking goofs a politician has ever made. Sorry to all those who disagree with me if my making the point repeatedly upsets you, but that's how it is.
I was told I was the only person thinking this, but I was told BLM weren't anti Semitic marxists who want to defund the police a couple of days ago, and Sir Keir was having to distance himself from them for just those reasons yesterday. So when others back me up, I like to link to it
But otherwise? Hardly. There is a small minority of the population whose instinctive reaction to seeing it is a genuine and profound unease - anger even - that the Labour leader is demeaning himself by "kneeling to the Black Man" but these are votes which would be hard for Labour to get in any event and it's arguable whether they even want them.
Of course I could be wrong about it being a small minority. In which case there is a problem - that Labour can't win elections without pandering to racism.0 -
The problem with the Grand Canyon is that you've seen a million images of it before you get there. So you walk to the rim, and oh yeah, there it is. Meh.MarqueeMark said:
Clearly you have never seen dawn rise over the Grand Canyon. Bucket list addition.TOPPING said:
Wow!eristdoof said:
Yes it is huge, it's 4.17 trillion cubic meters. That figure is so huge I sought a second source for the volume.TOPPING said:
Is that true? Jeez how big is the Grand Canyon?? Well of course you have just told me but well I never!!eristdoof said:
Another trick is to give yearly costs as per day, If you want to make it even lower quote it as per person per day.Stuartinromford said:
The trick with all government numbers is to convert them to per person; I'm sure I'm not telling anyone here something they don't know!CorrectHorseBattery said:For anyone who doesn't believe me that £5bn is sod all, it's a grand total of 7% of HS2.
Even if we ignore the spiralling cost of HS2, it's still an extraordinarily small amount of money to make a big speech about. Presumably it sounds large and is a vote winner.
So it's about £100 per head. So it's a moderately nice flatpack wardrobe per person.
Wasn't the ONE MILLION POUNDS thing fatally skewered by the first Austin Powers movie?
You can do it the other way round of course. "One coffee a day from Costanero costs over 1000 pounds a year".
My favourite example of playing about with the perception of statistics is lengths make things sound big volumes make things sound small.
If you put every person on earth head to foot you would get to the moon and back over 17 times.
Everyone can on earth fit very easily into the grand canyon, with plenty of living space roughly one large detached house for every person.
Much more interesting to walk down to the bottom and back (not in a day, as they are very keen on reminding everyone).0 -
Scottish Tory councillor suspended over 'totally unacceptable and offensive' Facebook posts
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-tory-councillor-suspended-over-222729700 -
PB Tories are not happy their man is being attacked, boo hoo, do you want to cry?0
-
Covid compare and contrast
Georgia's Covid Infection Demographics
Sweden's Covid Infection Demographics
0 -
More council housing is definitely required, and inside it is often better quality and size than private, even if private is much prettier on the outside and better located.NickPalmer said:
I agree that "trickle down" approach could work in principle, but it doesn't work very well, because what happens in practice is that family X seeking to move up the ladder need the capital to sell their current home, and the buyer tends to be someone with enough savings to put down the deposit, so people on low incomes with few savings are still shut out. The real shortage is of inexpensive rented accommodation not run by slum landlords. They do exist (I'm perfectly happy with my landlady) but they're in short supply.Philip_Thompson said:Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
In the end I think we do need council housing without Right to Buy. I'm not confident that private developers will ever be around in sufficient numbers to build lots of cheap, decent places for rent, or that in our economic system that everyone will be able to buy within our lifetimes.0 -
That's when the BJ boosters do the 'wise, farsighted voters doing the right thing>naive, stupid voters fooled by media' backflip.StuartDickson said:
The narrative that Nicola Sturgeon is competent and Boris Johnson is incompetent. Are you denying that such a narrative is gaining ground? (The latest GB-wide approval ratings had Sturgeon positive and Johnson negative.)Philip_Thompson said:
What narrative?StuartDickson said:
That narrative has been accepted in Scotland for weeks now, but it is only just beginning to be widely understood in England. Tory backbenchers are not going to be happy bunnies come the autumn.Scott_xP said:
Excess deaths have ended and besides Leicester we're coming out of lockdown and getting on with things. How does that fit your narrative?
Really stupid cartoon to be running on the day excess deaths figures are reported (from weeks ago) as being negative.1 -
Too slow. Got to be quick to be in the quip game.Theuniondivvie said:
He just employs them.dixiedean said:Boris isn't a Communist. That's a relief.
1 -
We can use Keir Derangement Syndrome too. All you Tories out there seem to be suffering from a chronic case of KDS!Gallowgate said:
Not my fault that it’s incredibly appropriate.BluestBlue said:
It's funny how you think repeating the vernacular of Trump fans ('living rent-free'; 'triggered') is somehow clever and original, when it's neither...Gallowgate said:
I see Keir Starmer is still living rent-free inside your head.BluestBlue said:CorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
What, Starmer pretending he'd never heard of BLM yesterday after he knelt before them?
That was pretty embarrassing, all right!0 -
Once it's mainly Africa and developing world it won't be on the news.NerysHughes said:
The point is people are going to watch carnage in the Americas and Africa over the next couple of months on the news, then will look at the UK and think its not been too bad here.StuartDickson said:
But but but Philip Thompson says that you can’t compare English performance with the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is not the same size as England. Or something like that.NerysHughes said:
Do you actually watch what is going on in the rest of the world?Scott_xP said:3 -
Good to see one political party being seen to deal harshly with their idiots.StuartDickson said:Scottish Tory councillor suspended over 'totally unacceptable and offensive' Facebook posts
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-tory-councillor-suspended-over-222729702 -
No problem, you don't have to apologiseOnlyLivingBoy said:
Sorry I was only gently mocking your obsession with Keir Starmer. I will try not to upset you in the future.isam said:
You have an over active imagination. We disagree on politics, you should be able to handle that without needing to resort to that kind of nonsenseOnlyLivingBoy said:
It's a thin line between love and hate. I imagine he has a wipe clean version of the picture to hand. Maybe the pervy version where Johnson has him on a leash? That seems to tick a lot of Tory boxes.kinabalu said:
Have you got it on your bedroom wall to give the finger to and laugh at every morning?isam said:0 -
Absolute bollox, not everybody thinks like you thank God. UKIP-types do not constitute a majority.isam said:1 -
If the trip takes three times as long then - fuel costs aside - it will cost three times as much, because each trip has to cover the cost of three times as much labour, capital depreciation, etc.Andy_Cooke said:
Bring back the airship. Uses a quarter the energy or less per mile and could be electrified today with no further advances.Philip_Thompson said:
Jet Zero is a great idea and something I've called for on this site before (but without thinking up that term, what a great term wish I had thought of it).RochdalePioneers said:Epic speech by Shagger. A BuildBuildBuild lectern that really needed a spirit level. A scything of red tape implemented by tying business up in mega red tape for Brexit. A Banging. Of. The. Lectern. every third sentence. A #JetZero plane powered by Boris spaff presumably. A bonfire of planning regulations allowing Tory party donors to build more houses. Enough money for roads to build 2 miles of motorway and enough money for schools to give them £2k a year for paint.
I'm tearing up - I'm that inspired.
Idiot Marxists and media types have been attacking aviation under the name of climate change. The solution to climate change is not and never has been us turning into hermits rolling back the industrial revolution while the rest of the world burns coal and moves on without us.
The solution to climate change has only ever been and only ever could be science and technological advancements. Reducing aviation is not a solution to climate change when the Chinese are building a new airport every week.
Inventing an electric or #JetZero plane and exporting that across the globe would be tremendous for climate change.
Yes, it takes a little longer, but you get there in more comfort and far more environmentally friendly.
https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/our-aircraft/airlander-10/luxury-travel/
Midway between airliners and cruise liners. Say, 24 hours to Florida from London, and the travel being enjoyable and part of the trip.
So unless you massively increase the cost of aviation fuel there's no way to make airships price-competitive. And even then you'd probably be at prices where the people left who can afford either would prefer to pay extra for the speed.
Sorry.0 -
To e fair, Cummings probably only finished it a few minutes agoScott_xP said:1 -
Not to lower the tone, but wouldn't you need another Grand Canyon to carry away all the effluent?eristdoof said:
Another trick is to give yearly costs as per day, If you want to make it even lower quote it as per person per day.Stuartinromford said:
The trick with all government numbers is to convert them to per person; I'm sure I'm not telling anyone here something they don't know!CorrectHorseBattery said:For anyone who doesn't believe me that £5bn is sod all, it's a grand total of 7% of HS2.
Even if we ignore the spiralling cost of HS2, it's still an extraordinarily small amount of money to make a big speech about. Presumably it sounds large and is a vote winner.
So it's about £100 per head. So it's a moderately nice flatpack wardrobe per person.
Wasn't the ONE MILLION POUNDS thing fatally skewered by the first Austin Powers movie?
You can do it the other way round of course. "One coffee a day from Costanero costs over 1000 pounds a year".
My favourite example of playing about with the perception of statistics is lengths make things sound big volumes make things sound small.
If you put every person on earth head to foot you would get to the moon and back over 17 times.
Everyone can on earth fit very easily into the grand canyon, with plenty of living space roughly one large detached house for every person.0 -
true to form interview from rent a gob bridgen. He seems to just blame the foreignors for the Leicester re-lockdown
0 -
Great truths are worth repeatingAlistair said:
Too slow. Got to be quick to be in the quip game.Theuniondivvie said:
He just employs them.dixiedean said:Boris isn't a Communist. That's a relief.
0 -
Attack away. For many conservatives Boris is less their man and more Blair's man.CorrectHorseBattery said:PB Tories are not happy their man is being attacked, boo hoo, do you want to cry?
0 -
Lockdown Leicester Mayor.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1277924629538103296
Stick together.
Spread the virus.
Ignore the rules, do as I do...
Blame Westminster for failings of local government, and inability of local politicians to manage local data.0 -
That is a very good post.Gallowgate said:One thing I hope is addressed is the use of estate management companies. Those who haven’t bought a new-build within the last 15 years probably don’t realise that roads, green space, and even play areas that were once payed for by the local council have essentially been privatised, and are payed for by residents of each estate. This is on top of council tax.
This is not a problem in itself, the problem is lack of regulation.
At the moment it’s possible for me to sue my management company for some breach of obligation, win, and then all the legal fees and compensation be backcharged through to the residents anyway.
This is not hyperbole, this is reality. There is literally no regulation.
You are better off being a leaseholder than a freeholder on new build estates when it comes to legal protection.
I'm not the most massive fan of local councils' ability to manage services (to put it mildly), but in comparison to some estate management, they do a great job.0 -
Dumb elected SCons say dumb things, nature truly is healing.StuartDickson said:Scottish Tory councillor suspended over 'totally unacceptable and offensive' Facebook posts
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-tory-councillor-suspended-over-222729700 -
No need to take away 'Right to buy' - simply do it at full market value.noneoftheabove said:
More council housing is definitely required, and inside it is often better quality and size than private, even if private is much prettier on the outside and better located.NickPalmer said:
I agree that "trickle down" approach could work in principle, but it doesn't work very well, because what happens in practice is that family X seeking to move up the ladder need the capital to sell their current home, and the buyer tends to be someone with enough savings to put down the deposit, so people on low incomes with few savings are still shut out. The real shortage is of inexpensive rented accommodation not run by slum landlords. They do exist (I'm perfectly happy with my landlady) but they're in short supply.Philip_Thompson said:Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
In the end I think we do need council housing without Right to Buy. I'm not confident that private developers will ever be around in sufficient numbers to build lots of cheap, decent places for rent, or that in our economic system that everyone will be able to buy within our lifetimes.0 -
Leicester Lockdown sounds like a comeback album from the Lurkers (Fulham Fallout).0
-
Can dish it out, but not take it ?BluestBlue said:
It's funny how you think repeating the vernacular of Trump fans ('living rent-free'; 'triggered') is somehow clever and original, when it's neither...Gallowgate said:
I see Keir Starmer is still living rent-free inside your head.BluestBlue said:CorrectHorseBattery said:Car crash speech, one of the worst I've seen in a while.
What, Starmer pretending he'd never heard of BLM yesterday after he knelt before them?
That was pretty embarrassing, all right!0 -
He would regret doing it now, I think he thought everyone would do it so he better. I suspect he hopes the BLM movement goes away in the UK now as some of their views are interesting.isam said:2 -
Come on, it's laughable, seeing Johnson posing in a hard hat, he's never done a hard day's work in his life, let alone manual labour.MarqueeMark said:
Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
The problem is that political messages do not in practice have an independent ethereal existence like Platonic Forms - they rely on their messenger. Starmer - to give him his due here - has the political danger sense to realize that the messengers have already tarnished the message and will only continue to do so in the future, so he spun around 180 degrees and dashed out of that minefield as quickly as he dashed into it. You almost have to admire the shamelessness!kinabalu said:
He simply made it clear that by supporting the anti-racism message of BLM - which is what it's known for tbf - he is not endorsing anything and everything which is said either by or in the name of the movement.BluestBlue said:
Perfectly reasonable position. Can't see the problem.
Corbyn, of course, would have charged forwards until he disappeared in a red mist...0 -
I don't see any reason to need Council Homes without right to buy.NickPalmer said:
I agree that "trickle down" approach could work in principle, but it doesn't work very well, because what happens in practice is that family X seeking to move up the ladder need the capital to sell their current home, and the buyer tends to be someone with enough savings to put down the deposit, so people on low incomes with few savings are still shut out. The real shortage is of inexpensive rented accommodation not run by slum landlords. They do exist (I'm perfectly happy with my landlady) but they're in short supply.Philip_Thompson said:Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
In the end I think we do need council housing without Right to Buy. I'm not confident that private developers will ever be around in sufficient numbers to build lots of cheap, decent places for rent, or that in our economic system that everyone will be able to buy within our lifetimes.
But perhaps an obligation for Councils to buy/build new homes to replace those that are sold over a certain period of time.0 -
Yes, Id even be quite happy with 5-10% discounts. Its when the discounts are 20-50% that it just ends up with windfalls for a few tenants (sometimes fraudulently) and the homes finding their way back as private rentals.Pulpstar said:
No need to take away 'Right to buy' - simply do it at full market value.noneoftheabove said:
More council housing is definitely required, and inside it is often better quality and size than private, even if private is much prettier on the outside and better located.NickPalmer said:
I agree that "trickle down" approach could work in principle, but it doesn't work very well, because what happens in practice is that family X seeking to move up the ladder need the capital to sell their current home, and the buyer tends to be someone with enough savings to put down the deposit, so people on low incomes with few savings are still shut out. The real shortage is of inexpensive rented accommodation not run by slum landlords. They do exist (I'm perfectly happy with my landlady) but they're in short supply.Philip_Thompson said:Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
In the end I think we do need council housing without Right to Buy. I'm not confident that private developers will ever be around in sufficient numbers to build lots of cheap, decent places for rent, or that in our economic system that everyone will be able to buy within our lifetimes.1 -
How can councils do that when they're complied to sell below market value ?Philip_Thompson said:
But perhaps an obligation for Councils to buy/build new homes to replace those that are sold over a certain period of time.
RtB at market value is fairest for all.0 -
It's getting more and more difficult to spot spoof articles.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
It's telling that you laugh at him for wanting to stand by those for whom that is their daily work gear. That those who do wear it day in, day out voted for him in droves in December suggests the laugh is on you.OllyT said:
Come on, it's laughable, seeing Johnson posing in a hard hat, he's never done a hard day's work in his life, let alone manual labour.MarqueeMark said:
Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.CorrectHorseBattery said:4 -
Look at SunderlandFoxy said:
Cases went from 0 to 1
This chart is nonsense
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1277689629714649089
1 -
The situation in Leicester doesn't look good at several levels. That it has happened in the first place. That measures supposedly to tackle the problem have been ineffective and half-hearted. That central government is basically passing the problem to local politicians to deal with and washing their hands of it. That there is a lack of collective will to knock this outbreak on its head.1
-
Civil servants are the new scum. Do keep up!logical_song said:
It's getting more and more difficult to spot spoof articles.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Some people get a 70% discount on RTB council homes. How can the council replace them with like for like? Is the money needed coming from central government?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't see any reason to need Council Homes without right to buy.NickPalmer said:
I agree that "trickle down" approach could work in principle, but it doesn't work very well, because what happens in practice is that family X seeking to move up the ladder need the capital to sell their current home, and the buyer tends to be someone with enough savings to put down the deposit, so people on low incomes with few savings are still shut out. The real shortage is of inexpensive rented accommodation not run by slum landlords. They do exist (I'm perfectly happy with my landlady) but they're in short supply.Philip_Thompson said:Just because there is a shortage of affordable homes doesn't mean they need to be built. Housing chains don't work that way.
If you were to build theoretically exclusively good quality decent sized homes that were new then ultimately those who are in existing stock will move up the housing ladder freeing up homes at the bottom of the chain that can then be moved into by those who need them.
In the end I think we do need council housing without Right to Buy. I'm not confident that private developers will ever be around in sufficient numbers to build lots of cheap, decent places for rent, or that in our economic system that everyone will be able to buy within our lifetimes.
But perhaps an obligation for Councils to buy/build new homes to replace those that are sold over a certain period of time.1 -
For now (and for good reasons) under-researched.StuartDickson said:
Thanks. I was simply translating the SVT (Swedish BBC) report, so their journos have clearly been negligible their research.Nigelb said:
Hardly the first case. There were reports as far back as April:StuartDickson said:Coronavirus can attack brain?
Breaking news from Sweden: a female patient with mild coronavirus symptoms became unconscious and was admitted to hospital. There it was discovered that she had severe inflammation of the brain (encephalitis). It is strongly suspected that coronavirus caused the inflammation, which would be the first case in the world.
She has survived but she has chronic brain damage.
Encephalitis as a clinical manifestation of COVID-19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146652/
We know for sure that it attacks the olfactory bulb, and there ia considerable evidence of its crossing the blood brain barrier;
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-infection
We have some idea of the overall fatality rate of this thing (somewhere around 0.5%, probably - but varying across different populations), but I don't think we have any good idea at all of the overall incidence of long term health consequences for those who have 'recovered' from infection.
I agree. We have been obsessed by Covid19 deaths, but what about all the chronic health problems for survivors and all the other health problems, especially mental health, for everyone else.
As I said, we've I don't think we have any good idea of the scale of overall nature of long term health problems. I hope it will be relatively few cases, but for now that is unclear - and even a small percentage of those infected could be a lot of people.0 -
Don’t like the result? Change the electorate!Philip_Thompson said:The Democrats need to gain the White House and 1 single Senator net to control the Senate effectively, since the Senator from Maine and Sanders do caucus plus the Vice President casts tie breaks.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by any means) and the White House one of their very first acts should be to admit Puerto Rico and New Columbia as the 51st and 52nd States of the USA.
Can the senate do that unilaterally? I’d assume the states might have a say?0 -
If Johnson can stop NIMBYism which I tend to find comes from the older generation, with housing but also rubbish about phone masts and other things, then he will have my respect.1
-
Again their cases went from 0 to 1MarqueeMark said:
I dont really see that as a need to panic0 -
Councils can do that from general funding they have as well as the capital they get from the sale.Pulpstar said:
How can councils do that when they're complied to sell below market value ?Philip_Thompson said:
But perhaps an obligation for Councils to buy/build new homes to replace those that are sold over a certain period of time.
RtB at market value is fairest for all.
Building can be done below market value too or else building companies wouldn't make a profit.0 -
I am less bothered about who owns the houses and more bothered about price and purpose (as in fit for). We are building a LOT of houses in this country. But look at the price of them and then look at the average wages in the area they are being built. Developers build "executive style homes" because they are more profitable. Which I can understand from their perspective which is why a Strategic Housing Strategy is needed. We build the wrong kind of houses in the wrong places...1
-
Do you have a source for this @Foxy? Curious about how robust this is...MarqueeMark said:0 -
If he can only pose with those whose occupation he has done a hard days work in he would have to be on his own.OllyT said:
Come on, it's laughable, seeing Johnson posing in a hard hat, he's never done a hard day's work in his life, let alone manual labour.MarqueeMark said:
Yes, the trauma of showing off the gear of common workers. It must be terrible for you to have to witness.CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
It is a bit half arsed. The plateauing of numbers has occurred while under the lockdown, including non essential shops being shut until June 15th. Hard to see why continuing those failing measures is seen as the answer.FF43 said:The situation in Leicester doesn't look good at several levels. That it has happened in the first place. That measures supposedly to tackle the problem have been ineffective and half-hearted. That central government is basically passing the problem to local politicians to deal with and washing their hands of it. That there is a lack of collective will to knock this outbreak on its head.
0
This discussion has been closed.