Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This trend look very worrying for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2023 in General
This trend look very worrying for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

This image sums up the existential crisis facing the Conservative Party over the next few decades.I don't see a single way in which the National Conservatism conference has helped moved the British centre-right any closer to addressing this. In fact, the reverse is true. pic.twitter.com/Ia52OBcIJN

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    Shocked.

    OpenAI’s Losses Doubled to $540 Million as It Developed ChatGPT

    OpenAI’s losses roughly doubled to around $540 million last year as it developed ChatGPT and hired key employees from Google, according to three people with knowledge of the startup’s financials. The previously unreported figure reflects the steep costs of training its machine-learning models during the period before it started selling access to the chatbot.

    Even as revenue has picked up—reaching an annual pace of hundreds of millions of dollars just weeks after OpenAI launched a paid version of the chatbot in February—those costs are likely to keep rising as more customers use its artificial intelligence technology and the company trains future versions of the software.


    https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openais-losses-doubled-to-540-million-as-it-developed-chatgpt?utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=Article,Archival+Project&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_source=twitter
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,836
    This is what happens when your brand of populism isn't popular.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Isn't that curve potentially showing that millennials are about to follow the path of Gen X, just from a slightly lower starting point and a bit later?

    I bet so much of this is related to house and car ownership. Those who aren't owners go socialist.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    Hang on, I thought Woke was a distraction and no-one cares about it?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,399
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    I hope you're not suggesting that I am a normal person!
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,087

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Hard to tell; there's not much left to sell off, let alone at a discount.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    I hope you're not suggesting that I am a normal person!
    If you start talking about efficient use of bed spaces it starts with you have a spare room you should rent out because you only have friends and family visit occasionally and then descends on a slope to you could fit bunk beds in your own bedroom and as you are single you should share
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build more houses and sell them at cost.

    Make it easier to get a mortgage, not Northern Rock style, but if you've been able to pay your rent of £750 a month to your landlord for 4 months without fail, it means you're good for a mortgage payment at that level.

    Also look at 40 year mortgages, if you're 25-30 then you're looking to be working until you're 70.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    Hang on, I thought Woke was a distraction and no-one cares about it?
    Did you? Well, perhaps it isn't.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build more houses and sell them at cost.

    Make it easier to get a mortgage, not Northern Rock style, but if you've been able to pay your rent of £750 a month to your landlord for 4 months without fail, it means you're good for a mortgage payment at that level.

    Also look at 40 year mortgages, if you're 25-30 then you're looking to be working until you're 70.
    and cancel all student uni fee debt
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    I thought this generation of young people was supposed to be less materialistic? More interested in experiences than owning things. Maybe that wasn't right.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    You used the p-word without a trigger warning.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build more houses and sell them at cost.

    Make it easier to get a mortgage, not Northern Rock style, but if you've been able to pay your rent of £750 a month to your landlord for 4 months without fail, it means you're good for a mortgage payment at that level.

    Also look at 40 year mortgages, if you're 25-30 then you're looking to be working until you're 70.
    and cancel all student uni fee debt
    Yeah, I'd change the approach to student fees.

    Have that difficult conversation that only a third of people should go to university.

    My policy would be to make fees free for people studying STEM, history, and law because they are the worthy/noble degrees.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
    It's also a national tragedy that a generation is growing up that cant aspire to the joy of having their own teenage kids. That really shifts opinions.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,399
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    You can interpret it as a suggestion that empty nesters should downsize and make family homes available for families who need the space.

    A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    I thought this generation of young people was supposed to be less materialistic? More interested in experiences than owning things. Maybe that wasn't right.
    It's not materialism to think that paying a fortune to rent rubbish housing with no end in sight is a bad thing. People want better and more afforable housing, be that renting or purchasing. The supply in the UK is out of whack.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    It's quite patronising to see people like Suella Braverman as agents of white male privilege.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Farooq said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    You used the p-word without a trigger warning.
    Yes, I know it irritates. Usually stay clear for that very reason but it slipped out there.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited May 2023

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
    It's also a national tragedy that a generation is growing up that cant aspire to the joy of having their own teenage kids. That really shifts opinions.
    Indeed, having kids changes your life, I got all my speeding points prior to fatherhood.

    I had an epiphany recently, that this generation will not be able to retire because they need to keep working to pay rent.

    That upset me.

    I'm one of the lucky ones in life (as are my kids) but not everyone will be able to rely on the bank of mum and dad.

    Nor will they be able to plan their lives on getting an inheritance when they are 50.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    You can interpret it as a suggestion that empty nesters should downsize and make family homes available for families who need the space.

    A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
    I am single I have a 3 bedroom house. I use it though one bedroom is mostly used only during the summer for friends and family. I value friends and family being able to visit and not need to pay through the nose for hotels. Why is that an issue if I don't want to downsize?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,002
    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    Fpt @Farooq
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Andy_JS said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    I thought this generation of young people was supposed to be less materialistic? More interested in experiences than owning things. Maybe that wasn't right.
    I have yet to work out if the generation in question is the most generous ever or the most stupid. They continually back policies which are not in their own interest . Who can say ?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Well I have to goto the office in central london next wednesday so.....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Indeed, when you get a mortgage, you really learn to budget, which leads to appreciation of sound money, and why inflation needs to be kept under control or interest rate goes up.

    That's when you learn the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
    It's also a national tragedy that a generation is growing up that cant aspire to the joy of having their own teenage kids. That really shifts opinions.
    Indeed, having kids changes your life, I got all my speeding points prior to fatherhood.

    I had an epiphany recently, that this generation will not be able to retire because they need to keep working to pay rent.

    That upset me.

    I'm one of the lucky ones in life (as are my kids) but not everyone will be able to rely on the bank of mum and dad.

    Nor will they be able to plan their lives on getting an inheritance when they are 50.
    Its a tough one increasingly now its look after the kids and the oldies. The money just burns you at both ends. Predictions of walls of money passing down stream are of course correct, but it just might be passing to a retirement home rather than your family.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,534
    Starmer seems to be trying to piss off quite a few people and shouldn’t assume that the anti Tory feeling is rock solid .

    The key to getting elected is not to give open goals to the Tories and not to alienate voters.

    The last week has been a series of own goals . From the voting debacle and now this housing policy .

    This also causes problems for the Lib Dems in those Tory Lib Dem marginals . Corbyn proved toxic and allowed those softer Tories to stick with them rather than vote Lib Dem .

    Even if the green belt policy is very limited most of the public don’t do nuance . If you have to explain a policy to mitigate its electoral damage then you’ve failed already .

    Starmer needs to get a grip and stop putting hurdles in place . It would be unforgivable to give the Tories a helping hand .

    His current what seems hubris needs to end .




  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    He hasn't had to do much. He's benefitting from the context created by Johnson's support for Ukraine, aided by not being Boris Johnson.
    That's a fair summary.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    And why should they, its not as if the UK can do a lot to influence temperatures.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Do you ever go to the Flask?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
    When has any government whether red or blue not used the cosh of disincentives rather than incentives are politicians only believe in the stick, carrots are like unicorns to them
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Shocked.

    OpenAI’s Losses Doubled to $540 Million as It Developed ChatGPT

    OpenAI’s losses roughly doubled to around $540 million last year as it developed ChatGPT and hired key employees from Google, according to three people with knowledge of the startup’s financials. The previously unreported figure reflects the steep costs of training its machine-learning models during the period before it started selling access to the chatbot.

    Even as revenue has picked up—reaching an annual pace of hundreds of millions of dollars just weeks after OpenAI launched a paid version of the chatbot in February—those costs are likely to keep rising as more customers use its artificial intelligence technology and the company trains future versions of the software.


    https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openais-losses-doubled-to-540-million-as-it-developed-chatgpt?utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=Article,Archival+Project&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_source=twitter

    It's startling how quickly the AI sh*ts are going down the traditional tech route. Use commons to create a business, then when you've done that, try to legislate to prevent new entrants. Usually it takes a decade or more for them to go from marketable product to legislation; they're doing it now.

    Sadly, for presumably intelligent people, they're avoiding the big question: why they did not realise these suppose dangers *before* they developed their product? And it the dangers are true, why don't they restrict access to it, or destroy their product?

    Charlatans.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
    We should somehow try to convince them to abandon such plans and make them keep their poor in their existing mud huts and tenements.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2023
    Is this so concerning for the Tories? The median voter in both the US and UK now is a 50 year old not a 30 year old. The Tories haven't won 18-40s since Cameron in 2010 but have won 3 general elections since. The Republicans haven't won 18-40s since George W Bush in 2000 but have won 2 presidential elections since and multiple Congressional elections.

    In an ideal world more 30-40s would get on the housing ladder, own property and become conservative (though see the huge opposition to greenbelt developments in that Yougov poll today, Starmer is taking a big risk pushing that). However the Conservatives can win losing under 40s, indeed they can even win a landslide victory losing most under 40s as Boris proved in 2019, when the age more voters voted Conservative than Labour was as high as 39
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
    We should somehow try to convince them to abandon such plans and make them keep their poor in their existing mud huts and tenements.
    Simple fact no nation is really going to go net zero because they know to try will end up in a popular uprising as no one anywhere will accept a decrease in what they feel they are owed as a living standard
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Farooq said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
    I'm going with the "profoundly stupid" as they haven't said anything to disuade me from that view.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    HYUFD said:

    Is this so concerning for the Tories? The median voter in both the US and UK now is a 50 year old not a 30 year old. The Tories haven't won 18-40s since Cameron in 2010 but have won 3 general elections since. The Republicans haven't won 18-40s since George W Bush in 2000 but have won 2 presidential elections since and multiple Congressional elections.

    In an ideal world more 30-40s would get on the housing ladder, own property and become conservative (though see the huge opposition to greenbelt developments in that Yougov poll today, Starmer is taking a big risk pushing that). However the Conservatives can win losing under 40s, indeed they can even win a landslide victory losing most under 40s as Boris proved in 2019, when the age more voters voted Conservative than Labour was as high as 39

    "In an ideal world... However"
    This is why your party is on the slide. You see the problems but you don't care enough to do something.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    glw said:

    Farooq said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
    I'm going with the "profoundly stupid" as they haven't said anything to disuade me from that view.
    The two are not mutually exclusive tbf
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Do you ever go to the Flask?
    There is a far better place not a million miles from the Flask which is where you will find all Hampstead champagne socialists hanging out.

    Sadly for you I won't name it but it is a special corner of heaven on earth.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,088

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    I'm not so sure. Is the Nimby Alliance quite that vast and unconquerable, or are a lot of these people merely expressing their distaste at the stereotypical image of green belt development - i.e. of ancient growth forests being felled and bucolic pastoral landscapes being concreted over to make room for Barratt boxes?

    The reality of the "Green" Belt is often very different indeed.

    Besides, Starmer isn't going to win power by appeasing selfish old fucks who care only about keeping house prices on a constant upwards trajectory. His basic pitch needs to be that the current dispensation delivers for practically no-one under the age of 50 and that it needs to be swept away.

    I mean, don't get me wrong, I won't even begin to believe that Labour will deliver urgently needed homes on the required scale until I at least see realistic policies which demonstrate that it has a believable path to achieving this (and that the party is, therefore, prepared to upset a lot of voters with vested interests in order to do it,) but the "builders versus blockers" rhetoric that Starmer has employed offers at least a glimmer of light in the pitch darkness of the nation's spiralling housing disaster. Perhaps he's actually prepared to do something meaningful to address the problem after all?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
    When has any government whether red or blue not used the cosh of disincentives rather than incentives are politicians only believe in the stick, carrots are like unicorns to them
    I mean, one example off the top of my head is tax breaks on electric cars.
    There are countless examples of carrots being used; it takes a special kind of blindness to not be aware of any at all.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2023

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    Is not what I said. I said stop catastrophising. Talk of climate change-driven "famines and wars" while still a common trope is not going to help the person in the street (being held up by Just Stop Oil protestors) come on board.

    And sadly they have removed the (in)famous Independent article which did indeed forecast no more snow.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/steve-connor-don-t-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

    And genuine question because apart from seeing them hold their parliament in scuba kit I haven't been following, when is the Maldives expected to sink below the surface.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    While many talk about we have outsourced our emission to places to china, a fact that is true to some extent, they rarely mention that the estimate of china's emissions is that its only 17% due to exporting goods to the west
    That's an excellent point: a staggering proportion is due to them making concrete to build skyscrapers.
    We should somehow try to convince them to abandon such plans and make them keep their poor in their existing mud huts and tenements.
    Simple fact no nation is really going to go net zero because they know to try will end up in a popular uprising as no one anywhere will accept a decrease in what they feel they are owed as a living standard
    Exactly. "Famines and wars" are more likely as a result of that than of climate change.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,878
    Farooq said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Is the conference called ‘National Conservatism’ in a deliberate nod to national socialism, or is it just unfortunate?

    It's hard to imagine nobody noticed the obvious parallel. So either it's deliberate or every single person organising it is profoundly stupid.
    Surely meant to evoke One Nation Conservatism?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    Well there is a line of argument which says that if people are unwilling to do anything about it and need saving from themselves (by whom? XR? @Farooq?) then I would not bet heavily on a successful outcome.

    But what about seatbelts!! everyone cries.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The best people get more left wing as they get older.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
    When has any government whether red or blue not used the cosh of disincentives rather than incentives are politicians only believe in the stick, carrots are like unicorns to them
    I mean, one example off the top of my head is tax breaks on electric cars.
    There are countless examples of carrots being used; it takes a special kind of blindness to not be aware of any at all.
    Electric cars = cars for rich people.

    The associated tax breaks are for the companies that buy them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Well I have to go to the office in central london next wednesday so.....
    You should be ok, the trains are running.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    Point of fact its not wind farms they are objecting to, its objecting to wind farms near them. They like the cosy of wind farms just not here. I am pretty sure there are many in xr that would be objecting
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    And ginormous solar panel arrays.

    Because those people value their physical surroundings over our attempt to stop the earth's climate changing.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Well I have to go to the office in central london next wednesday so.....
    You should be ok, the trains are running.
    Oh my so I cant stay :(
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,743
    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Does this mean the Conservatives will now be the anti-development anti-housing party?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    Well there is a line of argument which says that if people are unwilling to do anything about it and need saving from themselves (by whom? XR? @Farooq?) then I would not bet heavily on a successful outcome.

    But what about seatbelts!! everyone cries.
    I think if you go back up the thread you'll not find me saying that. This all started with LuckyGuy1983 complaining that we don't get as much out of negotiations with the EU as we could/should. One of my arguments is that people don't really care that much to elect people who re particularly motivated to change that.
    I thought it was implicit that I am ok with that but just to make it clear, I am absolutely ok with that.

    The job of people who are obsessed with a subject is to persuade others of its importance, not to drag everyone else against their will into something they don't care for. That's the liberalism that is heart of democracy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,280
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Does this mean the Conservatives will now be the anti-development anti-housing party?
    No thats the lib dems
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    There is a lot to object to, as anyone who's given more than a passing thought to the issue is well aware.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I have a couple of spare bedrooms if anybody is ever in Hampstead and misses the last bus.

    Do you ever go to the Flask?
    Not for a while. Outside at the Wells is more my sort of thing now.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775


    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Fpt @Farooq

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    "The Windsor Framework is a new beginning for old friends.

    Today, we've adopted a draft Memorandum of Understanding in the area of financial services with the United Kingdom."

    https://twitter.com/eu_commission/status/1658820291651424256

    Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.

    Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
    Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
    There are two possible explanations for this:
    1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible
    2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top

    I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
    I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
    Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he?
    Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
    I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.

    And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
    And as Just Stop Oil, XR and all the rest of them are showing us, the general public largely couldn't give a hoot about whether we hit the fabled 1.5C by 2027 or not.
    They will give a hoot about the implications though, as food prices shoot up and famines and wars drive even greater waves of migration.

    And here we get to the point. When we govern through optics and only choose to do things we think will win us the next election, we are no longer really governing.
    I think we can address a changing climate without the catastrophising. Is the Maldives still afloat? And what was that white stuff I saw a few months ago falling from the heavens.
    Come on, surely you’re better than the ‘it still snows sometimes therefore climate change is wrong’ nonsense?
    He didn't say climate change is wrong he merely told the truth, no one really cares that much except crustie activists
    … and my point is that ‘no one really cares about it’ =/= ‘not important’ or ‘not worth doing anything about’.

    It’s the inside out of the logic that kept Spaffer going so long; ‘people don’t mind me acting illegally or unprofessionally, therefore it’s fine for me to do’
    When I say no one really cares...what I mean is no one really objects to more wind/solar/etc

    however they aren't going to stop consuming, they aren't going to eat no meat, they realise other countries are going to want to catch up to our consumption. They are not going to back the we should all be subsistence farmers eating tofu cant of the extremists. They are instead going to assume we will muddle through with technical improvements because they know damn well most of the world is going to say the same
    Sadly, some people do object to wind farms, and vociferously too.
    There is a lot to object to, as anyone who's given more than a passing thought to the issue is well aware.
    Well, if you say so. I'd sooner live near a wind farm than a coal plant.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    algarkirk said:

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
    Vote for none of the above as none of them are fit to govern, they are all bereft of idea's about how to fix anything and the composite general idea is continue as we are. That won't work anymore they have all kicked the can down the road but we have run out of road now
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,087
    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    And yet...

    It may not be popular when stated baldly, but it can still be the right thing to do. The experience of the last couple of decades is that "brownfield first" doesn't deliver the amount of new homes we need, and building on lower quality bits of green belt looks like a way of delivering more of the right homes in the right places.

    Sacrificing a bit of popularity to do something necessary but unpopular? It's been a while since we had someone like that. Perhaps since 1979-90.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    TOPPING said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    The same way I interpret a comment that Brits should on average get more exercise. Not that you're going to woken at 5am for a 10 mile run at gunpoint.
    If the point is there are enough bedrooms for everyone so we don't need to build so much housing the only way to make that true is to make people let people use that bedspace. The two things are not in anyway similar. The difference is the only way the bedspace thing work is to make people let others use them.
    Have you ever heard of incentives, nudges? There are ways to encourage outcomes without forcing people. Surely you know this by now? Have you ever had any hand in raising any children? Have you ever been involved in any kind of negotiation? Do you know the first thing about anything?

    Don't you know there's a whole continent of possibilities between "this is a worthwhile goal" and "WE MUST COMPEL EVERYONE BY LAW TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW"
    A nudge you mean making it too expensive for me to keep a bedroom for friends and family by taxing me to the point I give in. That is still a compulsion though you call it a nudge. And yes I do have a child....strangely I like him to be able to visit and stay with me when he wants because I have a spare room he and his wife can stay in where I haven't been taxed into living into a one bedroom flat.
    Disincentives are not the only incentives.
    For example, you could think about tax breaks for people who do decide to downsize or take in lodgers.

    I mean, all I'm saying is you don't have to assume that a worthy goal will automatically mean you personally will have to do something you don't want to do. If you value the spare room I don't see why anyone should compel you to give it up, but that doesn't mean we can't find ways to increase occupancy. A policy can be put forward without it meaning its proponents want to create a nightmare tyranny to achieve it at all costs.
    When has any government whether red or blue not used the cosh of disincentives rather than incentives are politicians only believe in the stick, carrots are like unicorns to them
    I mean, one example off the top of my head is tax breaks on electric cars.
    There are countless examples of carrots being used; it takes a special kind of blindness to not be aware of any at all.
    Electric cars = cars for rich people.

    The associated tax breaks are for the companies that buy them.
    Well, even if that's the case it's still a carrot designed to encourage outcomes. Whether or not you support the means or the end isn't the point. It's a tax break to encourage a particular outcome that the government deems to be a good thing, which is all I was after. You know that there are many examples, some of which you may like and some of which you may not.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Pagan2 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    glw said:

    The Tories in the late 70s won the youth vote by selling off council houses and making it easier to get a mortgage.

    What's the equivalent in the 2020s?

    Build houses but the Tories are too stupid to realise this,
    Indeed, but I'm very skeptical that any of the parties are really serious about tackling the issue. The scale of what needs doing, and the groups they will need to confront, will make it politically unpalatable. I will not be at all surprised if Starmer clarifies his position about building on green belt land to mean that in practice little will change.
    Starmer has completely misjudged his policy on building on green belt which is a turn off for his own supporters even

    Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Oppose: 59%
    Support: 23%

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Astonishingly even 18 to 24s are only 20% in favour of more greenbelt housing, despite the fact most of them rent 41% of the youngest age group want to protect the greenbelt from development. That is Labour's core vote, if Starmer can't even win them over to it when they should be easily in favour it will be a huge own goal for him.

    Over 65s of course unsurprisingly hugely NIMBY, an overwhelming 69% of pensioners opposed to allowing new homes to be built on the greenbelt
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/05/17/d5ba5/1
    Does this mean the Conservatives will now be the anti-development anti-housing party?
    No thats the lib dems
    If Starmer wins a narrow majority and starts to build on the greenbelt, expect the Conservatives and LDs to unite again on an issue for the first time since the coalition on a NIMBY platform of protecting green fields from new housing
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Farooq said:

    This is what the war on woke does. Millennials and younger are quite woke.

    It seems to me that the objective of the 'war on woke' is the protection of white and male privilege and its favoured technique is an appeal to people's baser instincts. This is why I have a dim view of it.
    White, priveliged male declares war on protection of white, privileged males. And why on earth shouldn't you.

    Go you.
    Well not really. I'm just commenting (adversely) on the War on Woke. I leave the street fighting stuff to others. Does this delegitimise my contribution? No. You do what you can.
    It must chaff those who are seeking to elevate you, white man, that they find you strangely ungrateful for their help. Don't you know they mean well?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    algarkirk said:

    Denying people access to the property ladder is a stupid a strategy as attacking the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of WWII.

    Becoming homeowners begets Tory voters.

    The facts of life are conservative as someone once said
    Some truth in this Burkean thought. But which party would I vote for as a consequence? No, me neither.
    The older you get , the more injustice you see and the more you realise that often rules, order and so called ‘facts’ are lazy assumptions. If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,087

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    New Yougov after Starmer's plans to allow more development on the greenbelt.

    'Would you support or oppose allowing more housing to be built on Green Belt land?

    Support: 23%
    Oppose: 59%'

    65% of Conservative voters opposed, 67% of Leavers opposed, 65% of LD voters opposed, even 60% of Labour voters and 60% of Remainers opposed

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1658839136315273216?s=20

    Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.

    Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
    I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need.
    I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
    Too many people, not too few homes.

    And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.

    Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
    You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
    Normal person: "There might be ways to use space more efficiently"
    You, picking up a sledge hammer: "I swear to God, I'll smash my walls down"
    Because I like most people dont want to share my living space with random strangers because we would like to keep a room spare for visitors. I don't want to have to say to friends and family fuck off and get a hotel if you want to visit. One of the advantages of growing up is you get your own front door and can isolate yourself from random strangers. I did bedsits and shared houses in my twenties I have no wish to share space with fuckwits now

    You might but I suggest I represent the normal person in this not you
    Your reaction would be entirely understandable if someone was telling you you must take in a lodger. But there are gentler ways of incentivising change than mandating you share your bathroom with a stranger. I don't quite know why you leapt straight to the idea of enforced billeting.
    How else do you interpret a comment that bedspace is important not houses
    You can interpret it as a suggestion that empty nesters should downsize and make family homes available for families who need the space.

    A single person or couple doesn't need a three or four bedroom home.
    On the other hand, heavy nudging to force empty nesters out of their lifetime homes ought to make us uncomfortable.

    The thing that would justify that sort of assertive rationing is if it's a resource that is incredibly scarce and is too important to leave to wealth and chance. Food in wartime, toilet rolls at the start of a pandemic, that sort of thing.

    As things stand, that could be said to apply to housing. But only because society has made it that way. Which suggests a solution...

    (Why yes, the laser display board behind me is flashing JUST BUILD MORE HOMES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, why do you ask?)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited May 2023
    Andy_JS said:
    Well if he holds his seat, which is a big if given the LDs are targeting it, the newly 'protect our greenbelt' John McDonnell now has more chance of being next Tory leader than Hunt if he takes that attitude. Pushing for more migrants might go down well with the CBI but will go down like a lead balloon in the Shires
This discussion has been closed.