The Great Graduate Divide: Why the Tories might fare better with Sunak – politicalbetting.com

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Baffling

They are a state broadcaster, and should be using presenters that have trained as journalists and come through the ranks at the Corporation. As you say, it's the football we want to see, the presenter doesn't matter

Nigelb said:

First time since it was constructed...

California hits drought milestone as Oroville hydropower stops for first time
https://www.politico.com/states/california/whiteboard/2021/08/05/california-hits-drought-milestone-as-oroville-hydropower-stops-for-first-time-1389642

@rcs1000 to visit Donner Puddle later this summer...

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.

So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I expect Boris would be happy with the payrise but I doubt Lineker would be happy with the paycut (even if he does get Chequers and No 10 thrown in)

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

31,808 cases....92 deaths.

Cases on the rise again.

Do you know what they were last Friday?

29662

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

Eurosport is very good. I like them on most of what they cover. They're the opposite of bloated and it works really well.

Nigelb said:

First time since it was constructed...

California hits drought milestone as Oroville hydropower stops for first time
https://www.politico.com/states/california/whiteboard/2021/08/05/california-hits-drought-milestone-as-oroville-hydropower-stops-for-first-time-1389642

Three or four years ago they had exactly the opposite problem, when the spillway took more spillage than it could cope with ...

williamglenn said:

Alistair said:

Alistair's Covid forecast for today
<26,000 Brilliant
<28,000 Good
<30,000 Fine
>30,000 Half baked theory is in full swing

FrancisUrquhart said:

31,808 cases....92 deaths.

Cases on the rise again.

Alistair should enter Bake Off.

The doubling time of the curve of my model is fortunately huge. Over 7 weeks to double case numbers.

Vaccines work.

Philip_Thompson said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

Don't forget,

Anything not covered by the mainstream e.g. tech... YouTube

Not just outside the mainstream. Kids YouTube is better than CBBC.

My seven-year old son would massively disagree with you on that.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East. There is a similar problem in much of the South West like Cornwall where Londoners buy holiday or weekend homes they leave empty most of the time and locals cannot afford to buy or even rent sometimes.

So new housing in the South should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

Nice Socialist housing policy you are advocating there.

HYUFD and IshmaelZ both absolutely hate free market economics.

BlancheLivermore said:

My initial 10-12 spread for England's first innings runs is intriguingly poised with tea taken and ENG 11-0..

Winner!

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

First time since it was constructed...

California hits drought milestone as Oroville hydropower stops for first time
https://www.politico.com/states/california/whiteboard/2021/08/05/california-hits-drought-milestone-as-oroville-hydropower-stops-for-first-time-1389642

Three or four years ago they had exactly the opposite problem, when the spillway took more spillage than it could cope with ...

Floods are/were a regular thing, though.
This stoppage is the first in half a century.

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

Hahahahaha.

I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.

I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?

Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.

As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.

Again, the psychotic projection. Why are you obsessed with the level of house prices? Is everything in life measured in GBP?

Because housing is the number one cost in most people's household budgets.

If you're lucky enough to own a house without a mortgage then you might be naive enough not to realise that so I'll forgive your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you think everyone should be gifted a house without a mortgage at eighteen so that house prices cease to matter? Or only people who can inherit a house at eighteen without a mortgage matter to you?

So either it's a boring irrelevance to me and I am naive and ignorant about it, or I am evilly exerting every fibre of my being to keep house prices insanely high. Which is it?

Take your pick, you tell me.

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

BlancheLivermore said:

My initial 10-12 spread for England's first innings runs is intriguingly poised with tea taken and ENG 11-0..

Winner!

With a special nod to all the No Balls that India have bowled to facilitate our 15 runs so far.

No Balls have still scored more than Burns as it stands.

Good point. Batsmen 10, extras 5.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

I think double or even triple Council Tax is a good idea for second homes due to the externalities it creates, but I see no problems with second homes if people are willing to pay for it.

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

BlancheLivermore said:

My initial 10-12 spread for England's first innings runs is intriguingly poised with tea taken and ENG 11-0..

Winner!

With a special nod to all the No Balls that India have bowled to facilitate our 15 runs so far.

No Balls have still scored more than Burns as it stands.

You make India sound like a team of castratis.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.

42-45 now, though it feels ambitious

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Dunno but given that others were also prepared to sign big cheques for Lineker, maybe that is his market price. As for the Prime Minister, 100 years ago the PM was on £10,000 a year, which corresponds to about half a million now. The difference is at least partly due to rich or self-denying PMs turning down pay rises and even cutting their own salaries.

Let the others sign big cheques for Lineker immediately then, please..

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell

Did everyone in the Exeter visit that nightclub in Lincoln?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Maffew said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

31,808 cases....92 deaths.

Cases on the rise again.

Do you know what they were last Friday?

26,144 cases.

29,622. 26,144 was Saturday's number I think.

Sorry yes, read the wrong date.

Hmmmmmm....

Reporting date is problematic when the rates are changing......

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

Having watched the Olympics in the States, this is mild.

Leon said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell

And you according to ... you. The flings of Leon, as it were.

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

They built houses to match the number of incomers.

Idiots, eh?

That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.

Sandpit said:

More rain…

They're off and on like Hancock's trousers.

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.

Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.

That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.

45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.

You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.

I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'

Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?

I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.

I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.

Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

They built houses to match the number of incomers.

Idiots, eh?

That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.

How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.

Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.

Are they second homers?

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

Hahahahaha.

I don't give a toss what my house is worth; indeed the less it's worth, the less anyone can tax me on it. Please don't project your material greed onto me.

I'm thinking of buying a flat in Cornwall as a summer sailing base. Do you think I should?

Yeah right, NIMBYism is about keeping house prices high pure and simple and that is despicable.

As for Cornwall - I have no opinion on that subject. If you want to, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Have fun.

"Despicable"?

Good grief.

Yes despicable.

Trying to constrain supply and so keep house prices high artificially so you profiteer on others suffering is despicable. What else would you call it?

Well, I'd get rid of the bit about "profiteering on others (sic) suffering", unless you have some proof that's a specific motivator. That just leaves a situation where people are looking out for themselves and not bothering too much about the impact of their actions on wider society.

Which I'd call a somewhat selfish, yet perfectly natural and understandable course of action, which the Government could easily legislate to prevent if it so wanted (and was prepared to deal with the fallout). Calling it "despicable" seems utterly unwarranted and over the top, and means any sympathy I might have with the point your making instantly evaporates.

If you are rigging the market by denying construction, so that people are compelled to pay you more rather than pay less getting a home elsewhere then yes that means bumping the housing costs of others.

Profiteering is scorned in any other sector of society. If energy suppliers were actively involved in preventing new energy suppliers from entering the market, in order to maximise their profits by keeping energy costs high then would you consider that sort of profiteering despicable? I would.

Do what you want with your own assets but rigging the market trying to prevent others from undercutting you absolutely should be illegal.

Daveyboy1961 said:

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

They built houses to match the number of incomers.

Idiots, eh?

That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.

I wouldn't.

A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

He is free to date whoever he likes. However, those working around him should be allowed to do their jobs without harrasment.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

tlg86 said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.

Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.

That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.

45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.

You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.

I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'

Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?

I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.

I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.

Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.

Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels

In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers

Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while

"By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.

Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."

https://www.ft.com/content/1c489fb7-2840-4810-b3e6-a036803edf5c

BlancheLivermore said:

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..

As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.

Philip_Thompson said:

BlancheLivermore said:

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..

As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.

His brother, Wayne, was all over my mates then 17 year old daughter in Ibiza about 5 years ago. He would have been about 53 at the time

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

They built houses to match the number of incomers.

Idiots, eh?

That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.

How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.

Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.

Are they second homers?

I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad.
I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.

The issue is trying to distinguish between "real" second homers and people moving into a community. Even if someone moves to place, they may well visit their old haunts for a while.

In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....

Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....

felix said:

DougSeal said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

Having watched the Olympics in the States, this is mild.

Roger is a sensitive soul - he hates everything about his country with a vengeance.

I don't know. He likes the way 'talent' can abuse women in his industry with abandon. In his view, they should just leave the industry and become hairdressers ...

Philip_Thompson said:

BlancheLivermore said:

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..

As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.

Unless you're exactly sixteen, when it's illegal

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

BlancheLivermore said:

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..

As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.

Unless you're exactly sixteen, when it's illegal

If sex, obviously

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

BlancheLivermore said:

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..

As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.

Unless you're exactly sixteen, when it's illegal

But not creepy.

MrEd said:

felix said:

DougSeal said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

Having watched the Olympics in the States, this is mild.

Roger is a sensitive soul - he hates everything about his country with a vengeance.

Poor Roger - France is massively underperforming in these Games. Maybe he should move to Italy.

But he hates the French.....

isam said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

BlancheLivermore said:

squareroot2 said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

.

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

StuartDickson said:

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.

Rogeradumus strikes again.....

I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.

Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.

The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

FTFY.

Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
Want news? PB etc are better.
Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?

They enrich their favoured presenters rather well

On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way

Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

A win, win as far as I am concerned.

I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)

Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?

In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..

As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.

Unless you're exactly sixteen, when it's illegal

I wouldn't say a 16yr old sleeping with a 15yr old was creepy

Oh, I quite agree. I think I've been driven to look for edge cases by all the covid reporting..

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Malmesbury said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

IshmaelZ said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton

Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

Too much: 45%
An appropriate level: 31%
Not enough: 10%

Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.

76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it

'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.

The point is that only 10% want more

I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.

The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.

You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.

House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'

What ridiculous xenophobia.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.

There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.

If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?

Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.

In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

They built houses to match the number of incomers.

Idiots, eh?

That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.

How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.

Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.

Are they second homers?

I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad.
I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.

The issue is trying to distinguish between "real" second homers and people moving into a community. Even if someone moves to place, they may well visit their old haunts for a while.

In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....

Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....

Yeah it's a tough one. The place I'm interested in has chalets which are over 100 years old and they have always been holiday homes - I know this because my great grandfather bought one in the 1920s. In those days they were affordable for someone like him, a dockyard worker from Devonport, now they are super expensive of course.
I'm not sure there's a big moral distinction between buying one and renting it out, and staying in one as a paying guest of some other outsider owner as we do now. I love the place because my family has been staying there for at least 5 generations and I'd love to maintain that tangible link.