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

ydoethur said:

BannedinnParis said:

DougSeal said:

98 viewers...

I played football with Kit Yates.

I know, right!?!

Really? I would usually play it with a sort of rubber/leather ball, myself.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

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.

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?

Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....

Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

isam said:

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

"The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

Was the sort of thing I was referring to.

Malmesbury said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

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.

Buy one and rent it to a local couple cheap, so they get to live in a big house for the most of the year when you aren't there?

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.

isam said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

isam said:

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

"The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

Was the sort of thing I was referring to.

Yes, but that seems to be from the time (2014?) when academics were misinforming the public that EU immigration was not as high as the public thought!

kinabalu 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.

Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

isam said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

isam said:

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

"The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

Was the sort of thing I was referring to.

Yes, but that seems to be from the time (2014?) when academics were misinforming the public that EU immigration was not as high as the public thought!

1 or 2 million extra EU immigrants isn't going to bridge the gap between 13% of the population and 25%-33% though is it? That's a gap of 8-13 million people.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Cases graph looking more and more like late November...

kinabalu 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.

Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?

FrancisUrquhart said:

BREAKING: Florida reports 22,783 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 199 new deaths

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?

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.

BannedinnParis said:

Just back from 20 km of solid walking in the Dales.

Olympics.

Cycling madison -utterly imperious

Relays – lovely stuff, good to see Kilty win an Olympic medal

Pentathlon – thought we’d medal, didn’t expect an OR performance, brilliant

19 golds is ON, 20 harder, obv., but not impossible.

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu 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.

Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?

LOL no. And no she wasn't that when we first met either.

Two and half year age gap between us which is no issue for thirty something's, nor for twenty something's which is what we were when we met.

But if we'd been dating when I was sixteen, that would have been creepy.

The thing is with half your age plus seven is as you get older the gap that is required to be considered creepy grows. An eighty year old and a seventy year old isn't creepy, a twenty year old and a ten year old is.

Never think about your upper age bracket. It goes up two years every year!

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.

Would Lineker have to stop selling bags of fat to children if he became PM?

Mexicanpete 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.

Would Lineker have to stop selling bags of fat to children if he became PM?

Absolutely, and Johnson should get the gig. No half measures.

Philip_Thompson 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.

I wouldn't.

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

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu 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.

Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?

That's just a nasty slur.

BannedinnParis said:

Just back from 20 km of solid walking in the Dales.

Olympics.

Cycling madison -utterly imperious

Relays – lovely stuff, good to see Kilty win an Olympic medal

Pentathlon – thought we’d medal, didn’t expect an OR performance, brilliant

19 golds is ON, 20 harder, obv., but not impossible.

Leon 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.

No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon 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.

No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage

With one of the notably miserable marriages, did ol’ Leo observe his own recommendation?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson 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.

I wouldn't.

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

You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.

moonshine said:

I have had a successful day in that I made it to the pub for lunch and also clicked Buy Now on some of that Zimbabwean hot sauce, hopefully arriving in time for tomorrow’s bbq. In the interests of paying it on, I must recommend Benenden Sauce, makes even a drab salad something exquisite.

It doesn’t seem to be stocked by Bezos but you can find it easily enough:

https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/harringtons-original-benenden-sauce/082668-42047-42048

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?

Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....

Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?

The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.

That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.

It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.

I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

That complicates it - sometimes

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?

That's a good question. We all interact with many businesses: how can we be sure that the staff are not being abused or taken advantage of?

But the problems in restaurants have been known for decades - from management taking tips, to 'management' giving their tips too freely. It is something, if you are a lowly cook, you need to put up with.

I recall a really nice pizza place I found in Thailand. The kitchen was open planned in the middle of the place.

The Italian guy who ran it was henpecked in perfect Italian style by his Thai wife (who berated him non-stop in perfect Italian).... even down to the apron full of flour.... The even more ancient Italian sidekick who shuffled about the place doing various jobs, ignoring the strife made the whole thing into a perfect comedy.

Very good pizza.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?

Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....

Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?

The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.

That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.

It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.

I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

That complicates it - sometimes

Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?

Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....

Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?

The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.

That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.

It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.

I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

That complicates it - sometimes

It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon 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.

No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage

That may have been how it was originally construed but it still works nowadays as a guide as to that which is creepy and isn't.

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson 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.

I wouldn't.

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

You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.

Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.

Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?

Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....

Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?

The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.

That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.

It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.

I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

That complicates it - sometimes

Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?

No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers

Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you

So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.

Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson 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.

I wouldn't.

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

You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.

Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you

OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?

Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn

Leon said:

A Biblical ton of rain just fell on north London. And then it stopped.

This summer weather is decidedly ODD

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leon 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.

No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage

That may have been how it was originally construed but it still works nowadays as a guide as to that which is creepy and isn't.

My wife is a year older than me. Personally I have always revelled in being a boy toy.