Fifty Shades of Grey Voters. Sunak’s punishing polling – politicalbetting.com

sarissa said:

boulay said:

I have never seen such intense lightning in my life. It’s been going for thirty minutes non stop - if I didn’t know better I would think it was the paparazzi outside my house as Russell Brand is coming out the front door to welcome the England women’s football team for a party.

Usually there is a good gap between it but constant - ban this Lightning XL.

Massive lightning strikes tonight across the Midi after Leon has disappointing culinary experience. That’s a powerful ally to have backing you up!

Leon said:

bondegezou said:

.

darkage said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

New CBS poll:



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-biden-poll-2023-09-17/

That almost certainly means that Trump wins. He won the last time with less of the vote and it wasn't as close as that. Americans are truly mad, absolutely bonkers.

Will US democracy survive another Trump presidency?

I think its highly doubtful. It barely survived a Trump defeat.

I don't think its because people are mad. They are just tired of 'progressive' government and its absurd extremes, so the pendulum swings back the other way. People unfortunately don't have a very objective view of the world because they live in echo chambers and see what they want to see. It is a very difficult question as to whether American democracy can survive it.

I think it's because Fox News lies to them. Control the media and you conto how people vote

And of course the American liberal media tells the truth always

boulay said:

Leon said:

Frankly, I hope Japan win

Why would you want that - surely you want England to go far so you can rant and rave and be a miserabalist as long as possible?

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.

Here's a tweet from @Leon's fave tweetist, @AscendedYield

"More than £4bn is being invested in the regeneration of Elephant and Castle. Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company is a key investor."

• https://nitter.net/AscendedYield/status/1703405859634598251#m
  

The Qataris of course have got form in importing slave labour with gastarbeiter camps

• https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/exclusive-thousands-workers-evicted-qatars-capital-ahead-world-cup-2022-10-28
  

At least with Soviet cities there were green spaces, dedicated transport and a bloody statue of Lenin.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vKKnd3vr8
  

The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.

Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…

I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).

None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.

Andy_JS said:

The latest from one of Britain's best writers.

"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"

https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/

Leon said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

Frankly, I hope Japan win

Why would you want that - surely you want England to go far so you can rant and rave and be a miserabalist as long as possible?

I want borthwick and co and the whole elite of the RFU gone

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

squareroot2 said:

I wonder if Drakeford is about to learn that you can only govern WITH consent.

I am receiving social media comments from my daughter and if they are anything to go by there is a lot of anger in Wales tonight

Comments include the first country hearse drivers have to go on speed awareness courses, Wrexham football ground is full for Wales first speed awareness course, letters to Starmer resigning from Labour, and lots of signs being defaced

It is early days yet but the reaction today is very negative

Unfortunately, unless Wales does something radical and elects politicians with functioning brains and an understanding of the diversity of Wales rather than an eye to the main chance and no knowledge of anything outside the Valleys, they will keep doing these things.

I expect that there will be many LA'S under intense pressure to review some of their decisions

Following Plaids successful amendment they do have the power to ameliorate the effects and of course the Welsh government are required to review the policy

Yep, they could amend it to this (that's 12mph):

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Andy_JS said:

The latest from one of Britain's best writers.

"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"

https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/

Absolute horseshit, frankly.

The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.

He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.

Leon said:

Much better. Cmon England

TheKitchenCabinet said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Andy_JS said:

The latest from one of Britain's best writers.

"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"

https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/

Absolute horseshit, frankly.

The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.

He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.

He may be but, as the article says:

"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."

So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

ydoethur said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Andy_JS said:

The latest from one of Britain's best writers.

"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"

https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/

Absolute horseshit, frankly.

The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.

He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.

He may be but, as the article says:

"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."

So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.

You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?

nico679 said:

Now we’re onto the tv companies and what they knew and Brand ! More utterly tedious coverage of the non-entity ! Please make it stop !

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The most shameful performance against the Japanese since the Fall of Singapore.

Slightly different result, no?

Cyclefree said:

Andy_JS said:

"The importance of handwriting is becoming better understood
Research on pens and paper highlights their benefits"

https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood

I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

boulay said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The most shameful performance against the Japanese since the Fall of Singapore.

Slightly different result, no?

Yes but the performance were shameful.

It’s all a genius plan to make every other team think we are crap and then we surprise them in the knock outs. You’ve got to believe TSE.

Cyclefree said:

Andy_JS said:

"The importance of handwriting is becoming better understood
Research on pens and paper highlights their benefits"

https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood

I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.

Eabhal said:

Cyclefree said:

Andy_JS said:

"The importance of handwriting is becoming better understood
Research on pens and paper highlights their benefits"

https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood

I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.

My handwriting is incomprehensible and I have problems filling out forms. Source of embarrassment.

Agree on reading out loud - I book a room at work to do it.

boulay said:

Cyclefree said:

Andy_JS said:

"The importance of handwriting is becoming better understood
Research on pens and paper highlights their benefits"

https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood

I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.

I remember at prep school the excitement of when we were given our first
Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.

I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.

Benpointer said:

boulay said:

Cyclefree said:

Andy_JS said:

"The importance of handwriting is becoming better understood
Research on pens and paper highlights their benefits"

https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/09/14/the-importance-of-handwriting-is-becoming-better-understood

I learnt italic handwriting as a child with a pen and ink and still use it to this day. I prefer pen to biros and prefer pencil to biros too. And, contrary to what you might think, it is easy to write very speedily and legibly, in the italic style, which is immensely handy when sitting in court, meetings etc. I use computers obviously. But if I am working something out which is hard I often find that writing physically really helps with my thought processes, possibly because it forces me to slow down and really think about what I am writing. I edit with a pen and, oddly, I find that reading a document out loud helps with the editing too, even if it is only meant to be read. There is something about reading out loud which helps you hear the rhythm of a phrase or passage in a way that seeing it on a screen or paper doesn't.

I remember at prep school the excitement of when we were given our first
Ink pens. Writing lessons to get legible cursive with your new pen you chose.

I have been trying to find Schaefer no nonsense pens for ages as my writing with them was beautiful as the nib gave a soft caligriphic effect and as a left hooker they were one of the rare ink pens I could write well with.

As a lefty, ink pens were the bane of my school life - some teachers insisted in them being used, then deducted marks for the (inevitable) smudges. I dislike fountain pens almost as much as dislike fish knives, which I find literally pointless.

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

Cicero said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Some of you here may recall my ongoing rant about how we are creating growth by importing 500K-1M foreign nationals per year and getting foreign wealth funds to build the shoeboxes necessary to quarter them, with the result that the younger generations have to work harder and harder to live in smaller and smaller places whilst paying rent to foreign nationals to live in them.

Here's a tweet from @Leon's fave tweetist, @AscendedYield

"More than £4bn is being invested in the regeneration of Elephant and Castle. Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company is a key investor."

• https://nitter.net/AscendedYield/status/1703405859634598251#m
  

The Qataris of course have got form in importing slave labour with gastarbeiter camps

• https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/exclusive-thousands-workers-evicted-qatars-capital-ahead-world-cup-2022-10-28
  

At least with Soviet cities there were green spaces, dedicated transport and a bloody statue of Lenin.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vKKnd3vr8
  

The UK developments are just box on box on box on box on box. A future holding pen for drug addicts and murder dogs whilst our lords and masters swan around on stupidities with no consequence.

Though Soviet planing didn’t include 1 bedroom per person. Or even 1 bedroom between 2…

I'm plowing thru "The Shortest History Of The Soviet Union" (Sheila Fitzpatrick, ISBN-13 978-1-913083-40-3?). In the early days it was bleak, with one room per family and single males in whatever nook would fit. But by the 50s and 60s when Khrushchev came in they built five-story prefabricated blocks (khrushchevka), one family to a flat. For 100 million people. In ten years (1956 to 1965).

None of this flammable cladding ten-storey-or-more crap we are throwing up all over the place. Look at Leeds. Reading. Basingstoke. Woking. London.

WTF?

You seriously think the USSR had better building codes than the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?

If you spent time in a Kruschevchina building then of course you would know that paper thin walls does not even cover it. No Uk building standards were worse than the USSR.

If you are going to troll, you need to do a LOT better.

A good point but you misunderstand me.

I wasn't saying they were better built. I was saying they were built en-masse in an organised manner as part of an overall plan by a workforce and planners far inferior to the UK's. Yet the UK cannot match it, throwing up developments here, there, and everywhere that are far too tall with flats that are far too small. Accidents waiting to happen.

This is an apartment building in Basingstoke, on a road called Alencon Link. It's 18 storeys tall. It's full of one-bedroom and studio (no bedroom) flats. Here is a flat in a similar building

• https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132899141
  

It is far better fitted than the Soviet crap. But it has no kitchen nor bedroom. In fact it's only 27.7sq metres. That's a crucial number, because you can't get a High St mortgage on a flat if it's less than 30sq metres. You can't buy it. And given that its £140,000, you can't afford it anyway.

What happens in cases like this is it's bought by the wealthy and let to the poor. In the case of this particular building, (IIRC) it's known for a fatality where a immigrant prostitute jumped from/was thrown out of a window to her death.

That's what we're building. Aren't we proud?

Fucking banana republic.

I assume this is the attraction of student flats too, which represent a huge proportion of Edinburgh's new builds. Smaller than a scandi prison cell.

Happily, the STL restrictions are about to come in here in Scotland which might flood the market with new long term lets/homes for sale. Bad news for my flat value, but if the Airbnb in my stairwell closes I'll be deeply grateful.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

ydoethur said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Andy_JS said:

The latest from one of Britain's best writers.

"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"

https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/

Absolute horseshit, frankly.

The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.

He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.

He may be but, as the article says:

"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."

So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.

You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?

Which is sad in itself and not a good look for the left (and the right would be the same in the same circumstances).

Hard to know with Brand. He is obviously sleazy and it is not hard to imagine that his type of 'persuasion' would raise serious questions. However, it does look as though his political beliefs have somewhat crept into this investigation.

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

Malmesbury said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

ydoethur said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Andy_JS said:

The latest from one of Britain's best writers.

"Could Russell Brand’s defenders and accusers both be right?
The allegations are deadly serious — but politics is always involved
Mary Harrington"

https://unherd.com/thepost/could-russell-brands-defenders-and-accusers-both-be-right/

Absolute horseshit, frankly.

The story has come out now, not because Brand is spreading increasingly nuts conspiracy theories which are commonplace on the internet and have a market amongst the terminally credulous. They are coming out because of a credible piece of investigative journalism that a mainstream broadcaster and newspaper can put out without fear of it falling apart.

He is a nasty predator who has been caught bang to rights and is using the tried and tested witch hunt card. There is no more to it than the obvious.

He may be but, as the article says:

"The Sunday Times report indicates that Brand’s new social media direction, a video channel whose content ranges from wellness to Covid and Net Zero “dissident” material, was a factor in inspiring several to speak out."

So you seem ti be saying his views have nothing to do with it even as several of his accusers say his views prompted them to come out - which raises the question of whether they would have come out if he had continued to say "Tories are XXXXX" etc.

You could also read that as they didn't think anyone would believe them while he was the darling of the left and they would be the target for even more nasty abuse?

Which is sad in itself and not a good look for the left (and the right would be the same in the same circumstances).

Hard to know with Brand. He is obviously sleazy and it is not hard to imagine that his type of 'persuasion' would raise serious questions. However, it does look as though his political beliefs have somewhat crept into this investigation.

I would imagine that the enablers and defenders of his behaviour withdrew their support. We are already hearing from multiple sources that his behaviour was known and even allowed for. No would report it.

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.

So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.

The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.

The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.

This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.

So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.

The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.

The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.

This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.

Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!

Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

StillWaters said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?

Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?

The window tax was more sensible!

Just tax land and leave it at that.

A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would
attract the same land tax if they use the same land.

That’s a take or pay contract.

Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.

Eabhal said:

A

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.

Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.

My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.

And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?

Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.

Parks!

And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.

Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)

StillWaters said:

Malmesbury said:

StillWaters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

StillWaters said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

How would you manage the spare bedroom thing? Count everyone’s rooms? What’s a spare bedroom vs an office?

Would you reduce taxes by combining 2 small bedrooms into one larger one?

The window tax was more sensible!

Just tax land and leave it at that.

A block of flats, or 2 detached homes, or four semis all on the same land would
attract the same land tax if they use the same land.

That’s a take or pay contract.

Why should the government effectively force someone to use land if they don’t want to? I will fight for the right to do nothing.

Your right to do nothing imposes a cost on the community - by reducing the availability of housing.

The necessity of the limitation of personal
rights, to the benefit of society as a whole is the whole reason we don't live in anarchist/Ayn Rand heaven. Or is it hell?

Making someone pay for the externalities associated with their *action* is fine. Not charging them for *inaction*.

You are upending the relationship between the state and the individual

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

A

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.

Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.

My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.

And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?

Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.

Parks!

And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.

Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)

The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.

Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.

We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.

Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.

Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Benpointer said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

I've mentioned this before but our village or 150 houses is deemed 'open countryside' in the Local Plan - no building is allowed except to knock-down and replace an existing building, not even infill. Ironically, because the village is deemed too small.

So the village is stagnating and dying, being too small to thrive and too small to be allowed to grow.

The reason we have so little house building is because lots and lots of people don't want house building.

The reason we don't ban American Bully XL dogs is because lots and lots of people don't want them banned.

This won't change with a change in government - Greenwashed NIMBYism will adapt to the new circumstances. Unless someone hits it head on.

Build the homes where there are lots of YIMBYs (i.e. renters) - cities!

Despite it being against my financial self-interest, I would welcome even more development round me. Leads to a thriving economy, lower costs for workers, efficient public services. Even in Leith there is still loads of post-industrial land that can be developed.

Ha.

The first thing people do, after unpacking in their new built home, is join the local "Stop The Building" campaign.

Right now, we are building tons of unliveable tower blocks - which are beginning to run out of buyers. Unfortunately the meat units are not adapting to their living machines. Perhaps the meat units are faulty and need to be sent for reprocessing?

One of the things that really needs sorting in planning is the lack of the missing middle. We can do low density detached sprawl (which means that the shops, schools, services and so on gave to be drive-to, because there aren't enough people within walking distance), we can do tower blocks (which have their own problems). But we struggle to build the mid density stuff. Dignified terraced townhouses, four storey mansion blocks. That sort of thing.

Even if net migration were squeezed to zero (and I doubt the UK would enjoy that), we'd still have changing family patterns, shifting geography and (please) rising living standards. We'd still need lots of new homes.

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

A

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

EPG said:

Eabhal said:

viewcode said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

The key is to liberalise the planning system so alternative buildings can be built instead.

If better quality rival buildings were built nearby then nobody would let those squalid shoeboxes as they'd be able to live somewhere else instead, at which point the Qataris or whoever else have invested in this shitbox would have their money burnt and find that what they're holding is worthless and should be demolished and rebuilt to a standard people actually want to live in.

We need enough construction so that about 10% of properties are empty, like in most other countries, which requires a few million developments plus a few million more in the next decade to match population growth.

Forget 300k, we should be aiming at 600k properties getting built per annum.

My preferred option is to import (far) less people, but if we are going to import 500K-1M pa then yes, your option is the best (and horribly needs to be bigger )

Or just build high quality, high density homes in our towns and cities. Reform council tax so that spare bedrooms are costly, but reduce taxes on transactions so downsizing is much cheaper.

There are thousands of two bed detached houses going up in Edinburgh, with poxy little gardens and space for two cars. Replace with tenements surrounded by decent parks and integrated tram/bus services, like the rest of the city.

I think it's likely that homebuyers have a very strong preference for car parking spaces, because they tend to be parents, and they have lots of options in the existing stock with which new housing has to compete.

It's why we have a housing shortage and congestion problems though. A good target for the government would be to get more older people (50+) out of big empty houses, freeing them up for younger people, and into new build flats with good transport connections. That's how the Scandinavians do it.

Nope.

We have 8 million fewer properties than France and a similar population.

When the dam breaks I am going to enjoy watching the bulldozers tearing through the precious spaces that certain people wanted to “save”.

They wanted the expanding population - I am entirely happy with that.

The racist shits thought that they could keep their “unspoilt countryside” and just pile the new help up in less and less space. Ha Ha.

The scale of the housing crisis is so large that we should provide homes as efficiently as possible - in areas with existing infrastructure and on small amounts of land.

Plastering the UK with detached new builds with no schools, public transport, GP surgeries (etc) or other infrastructure is the least cost effective way to provide the homes we need.

My tenement has 25 people living in it, takes up the space of one house, and is a max 10 minute walk from all essential services. 50,000 people live within a 15 minute walk of me.

And for the people who don't want to live in an Arcology?

Packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces is already having detectable mental effects. There was a paper I was reading, just the other day - the author correlated property size and quality with mental health. And the results were completely unsurprising.

Parks!

And there are loads of beautiful detached houses, with large gardens and plenty of bedrooms, where people could bring up their children.

Problem is they are packed out by retirees (or are the second home of retirees, or holiday homes, or airbnbs...)

The UK, as a whole, has one of the highest ratios of people to bedrooms out there.

Much like the mythology of empty tower blocks of flats being hoarded by Fu Manchu & Co., there isn't a hidden stockpile of housing we can just release.

We need to build some more Liverpools. One or 2 a year. For the foreseeable future.

Getting some crumblies out of the family home is a speck of fly shit, compared to that need.

Shame about the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales, but hey....

London has a lower density than most comparable cities. Some building of more homes can be in existing urban areas.