From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
About 7% of the population at large have been privately educated.
38.4% of Durham students went to a private school. 36.9% of St Andrews students, 36.6% RAC students, 34.5% of Exeter students.
Topping's list is essentially correlated with that.
And they queue up for their free bus passes, get free TV licences, get winter fuel allowances etc. These benefits are clearly needed for poorer pensioners but they are so absurdly focused and unaffordable at a time when we have such large deficits and so many better priorities. Eventually, some government is going to have the courage to do something about this.
You are dreaming David, you need to be about a hundred to get a TV licence, winter allowance is a fraction of a % of the tax I pay and I woudl not stoop to use a bus so get zilch. Grandson does make use of the free pass mind you. It would cost significantly more to means test those benefits than it costs. Pensioners with money do not use buses, you have to be really really old to get TV licence and fuel allowance is not that much and again would cost more to means test. Given you are on the cusp I am surprised you ahve fallen into the bash and starve a pensioner brigade because I don't get it brigade.
"Would not stoop to use a bus"
This is the attitude that has basically bankrupted the country. The bus services that young people and poorer people use to get to the workplace have been cut by roughly half since 2010.
That means that you have to live within walking or cycling distance of work, forcing millions of young people into only a few square miles in the city centre (or London), supercharging the housing crisis. Alternatively, they spend years saving up enough money for driving lessons, car insurance and the car itself.
Meanwhile rich pensioners, who have much higher rates of car ownership, get a free bus pass...
Under 22 year olds in Scotland are also eligible for a bus pass.
Does not matter if that bus does not exist.
I'm against all forms of free public transport on the basis that the money would be better spent on more routes and more frequent services.
There is of course no such thing as a free lunch or bus ride - it is all paid for somewhere.
I suspect the largest 'free' transport in the UK is the 'free' provision of a road network, extensive though round here full of pot holes, for cars.
Car tax yields £7.4bn per year, and fuel duty £25.1bn for the State, local authorities in England made £923m from parking activities, £230m from congestion charges, and £370m in tolls. £5.7bn was also paid in VAT on vehicle purchases, and £1.2bn in insurance premium tax.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
Looking back, aged 18, I think I saw university as essentially a prize for having done well at school, and didn't really want that prize to be 'lots more work', certainly not 'lots more work in a small town miles from anywhere' - so I didn't really consider Oxbridge. I don't think I really considered that there might be life advantages for me in going there - the impression I got was that the main benefit in Oxbridge was kudos for the school.
Clearly some people from my school were a bit more savvy at 18 than I was and headed for Oxbridge.
But after that, from Greater Manchester, the universities people aimed for were those in a big city in a different local television area (nothing wrong with universities of Manchester or Liverpool, but it wasn't really seen as the done thing to stay so close to home) - so Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol. Of those 8 - notwithstanding the earlier point about going away - the closest were by far the most popular: so Sheffield, Nottingham, Leeds. London was on few radars because it was so far away and it had so many universities that it wasn't immediately obvious which the 'main' university was.
Aside from Oxbridge, there were few applications for small town/city universities, apart from, weirdly, Warwick (which I suppose technically was actually in Coventry so not the small town it pretended.)
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Hungary’s latest Russia scandal: @direkt36 reveals that Orbán’s foreign ministry has been compromised by an ongoing Russian cyberespionage campaign. They even hacked the encrypted channel also transmitting confidential NATO & EU material.
..When MFA Péter Szijjártó received the Order of Friendship from Sergey Lavrov - awarded by Putin himself - he already knew well that his ministry has been completely hacked by Russia.
And they queue up for their free bus passes, get free TV licences, get winter fuel allowances etc. These benefits are clearly needed for poorer pensioners but they are so absurdly focused and unaffordable at a time when we have such large deficits and so many better priorities. Eventually, some government is going to have the courage to do something about this.
You are dreaming David, you need to be about a hundred to get a TV licence, winter allowance is a fraction of a % of the tax I pay and I woudl not stoop to use a bus so get zilch. Grandson does make use of the free pass mind you. It would cost significantly more to means test those benefits than it costs. Pensioners with money do not use buses, you have to be really really old to get TV licence and fuel allowance is not that much and again would cost more to means test. Given you are on the cusp I am surprised you ahve fallen into the bash and starve a pensioner brigade because I don't get it brigade.
"Would not stoop to use a bus"
This is the attitude that has basically bankrupted the country. The bus services that young people and poorer people use to get to the workplace have been cut by roughly half since 2010.
That means that you have to live within walking or cycling distance of work, forcing millions of young people into only a few square miles in the city centre (or London), supercharging the housing crisis. Alternatively, they spend years saving up enough money for driving lessons, car insurance and the car itself.
Meanwhile rich pensioners, who have much higher rates of car ownership, get a free bus pass...
Under 22 year olds in Scotland are also eligible for a bus pass.
Does not matter if that bus does not exist.
I'm against all forms of free public transport on the basis that the money would be better spent on more routes and more frequent services.
There is of course no such thing as a free lunch or bus ride - it is all paid for somewhere.
I suspect the largest 'free' transport in the UK is the 'free' provision of a road network, extensive though round here full of pot holes, for cars.
Car tax yields £7.4bn per year, and fuel duty £25.1bn for the State, local authorities in England made £923m from parking activities, £230m from congestion charges, and £370m in tolls. £5.7bn was also paid in VAT on vehicle purchases, and £1.2bn in insurance premium tax.
Spending on roads is not the only source of costs associated with motoring, so this is a bogus comparison. For example, that insurance premium tax could be compared to the costs of road traffic accidents (1,766 killed and 28,941 seriously injured in 2022). The fuel duty could be compared to costs associated with air pollution (~49k deaths per year) and global warming.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Every time Kamala appears on TV the Dem polling falls, she’s a huge drag on the ticket.
Biden would have been much better off picking someone more popular, who would either be in a position to take over this year or give the impression of being able to to take over if Biden’s health deteriorates further.
But he picked the black woman, primarily because she was a black woman.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Insecure much?
Don't get all snitty I said it wasn't academically. "blah blah blah ranked unis in the world blah blah".
Not remotely insecure, I’ve really got nothing to be insecure about, and I was making the point that not only are they highly ranked academically but the social element there is also very high - I would guess higher than those in your rankings but they blend in because London is quite big funnily enough.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
There are only two times since WWII when an incumbent has "voluntarily" stepped aside - LBJ & Nixon.
Why would Biden think he deserved to be in such company?
I also think there's a psychological point too, which acts against standing aside. He saw Trump win in 2016 after deciding not to run, and he must think that he would have won in 2016 had he run, and that would have prevented the Trump Presidency and the full MAGA takeover of the GOP.
So it's his duty to run again. Who else is going to defeat Trump again and save American democracy?
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Topping is ranking them as finishing schools, not academically.
Although interestingly, as I might have mentioned for the 800 times before on here, Eton at least (perhaps other schools also) heavily restricts its Oxbridge applicants so the market (of bright people at various universities) is skewed.
Eton isn't that big; nor are all of its pupils particularly bright.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Insecure much?
Don't get all snitty I said it wasn't academically. "blah blah blah ranked unis in the world blah blah".
Not remotely insecure, I’ve really got nothing to be insecure about, and I was making the point that not only are they highly ranked academically but the social element there is also very high - I would guess higher than those in your rankings but they blend in because London is quite big funnily enough.
NOT REMOTELY INSECURE.
Okey dokey.
Leaving out Imperial, UCL and LSE does seem like a gap, though.
My eldest daughter decided on UCL - a mixture of academic reputation and fashionability.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
I cannot help but feel that Harris has not been used to the best of her abilities during the Biden presidency and/or has been poorly advised.
Yes she may have failings but I don’t think it was inevitable that she would end up where she is now.
And they queue up for their free bus passes, get free TV licences, get winter fuel allowances etc. These benefits are clearly needed for poorer pensioners but they are so absurdly focused and unaffordable at a time when we have such large deficits and so many better priorities. Eventually, some government is going to have the courage to do something about this.
You are dreaming David, you need to be about a hundred to get a TV licence, winter allowance is a fraction of a % of the tax I pay and I woudl not stoop to use a bus so get zilch. Grandson does make use of the free pass mind you. It would cost significantly more to means test those benefits than it costs. Pensioners with money do not use buses, you have to be really really old to get TV licence and fuel allowance is not that much and again would cost more to means test. Given you are on the cusp I am surprised you ahve fallen into the bash and starve a pensioner brigade because I don't get it brigade.
"Would not stoop to use a bus"
This is the attitude that has basically bankrupted the country. The bus services that young people and poorer people use to get to the workplace have been cut by roughly half since 2010.
That means that you have to live within walking or cycling distance of work, forcing millions of young people into only a few square miles in the city centre (or London), supercharging the housing crisis. Alternatively, they spend years saving up enough money for driving lessons, car insurance and the car itself.
Meanwhile rich pensioners, who have much higher rates of car ownership, get a free bus pass...
Under 22 year olds in Scotland are also eligible for a bus pass.
Does not matter if that bus does not exist.
I'm against all forms of free public transport on the basis that the money would be better spent on more routes and more frequent services.
There is of course no such thing as a free lunch or bus ride - it is all paid for somewhere.
I suspect the largest 'free' transport in the UK is the 'free' provision of a road network, extensive though round here full of pot holes, for cars.
Car tax yields £7.4bn per year, and fuel duty £25.1bn for the State, local authorities in England made £923m from parking activities, £230m from congestion charges, and £370m in tolls. £5.7bn was also paid in VAT on vehicle purchases, and £1.2bn in insurance premium tax.
Spending on roads is not the only source of costs associated with motoring, so this is a bogus comparison. For example, that insurance premium tax could be compared to the costs of road traffic accidents (1,766 killed and 28,941 seriously injured in 2022). The fuel duty could be compared to costs associated with air pollution (~49k deaths per year) and global warming.
I also missed off the economic benefits of people being independently mobile, and not confined outside large cities to public transport schedules which severely limit mobility of labour.
And they queue up for their free bus passes, get free TV licences, get winter fuel allowances etc. These benefits are clearly needed for poorer pensioners but they are so absurdly focused and unaffordable at a time when we have such large deficits and so many better priorities. Eventually, some government is going to have the courage to do something about this.
You are dreaming David, you need to be about a hundred to get a TV licence, winter allowance is a fraction of a % of the tax I pay and I woudl not stoop to use a bus so get zilch. Grandson does make use of the free pass mind you. It would cost significantly more to means test those benefits than it costs. Pensioners with money do not use buses, you have to be really really old to get TV licence and fuel allowance is not that much and again would cost more to means test. Given you are on the cusp I am surprised you ahve fallen into the bash and starve a pensioner brigade because I don't get it brigade.
"Would not stoop to use a bus"
This is the attitude that has basically bankrupted the country. The bus services that young people and poorer people use to get to the workplace have been cut by roughly half since 2010.
That means that you have to live within walking or cycling distance of work, forcing millions of young people into only a few square miles in the city centre (or London), supercharging the housing crisis. Alternatively, they spend years saving up enough money for driving lessons, car insurance and the car itself.
Meanwhile rich pensioners, who have much higher rates of car ownership, get a free bus pass...
Under 22 year olds in Scotland are also eligible for a bus pass.
Does not matter if that bus does not exist.
I'm against all forms of free public transport on the basis that the money would be better spent on more routes and more frequent services.
There is of course no such thing as a free lunch or bus ride - it is all paid for somewhere.
I suspect the largest 'free' transport in the UK is the 'free' provision of a road network, extensive though round here full of pot holes, for cars.
Car tax yields £7.4bn per year, and fuel duty £25.1bn for the State, local authorities in England made £923m from parking activities, £230m from congestion charges, and £370m in tolls. £5.7bn was also paid in VAT on vehicle purchases, and £1.2bn in insurance premium tax.
Spending on roads is not the only source of costs associated with motoring, so this is a bogus comparison. For example, that insurance premium tax could be compared to the costs of road traffic accidents (1,766 killed and 28,941 seriously injured in 2022). The fuel duty could be compared to costs associated with air pollution (~49k deaths per year) and global warming.
In which case you would also have to add the economic and social benefits that come with road transport.
Perhaps starting with there being no food in the shops without it.
As a working class Yorkshireman I have to say I loved all the oik chat on the last thread.
My experience of Oxford was that public school toffs went round like they owned the place, comprehensively educated Northerners could set themselves up as working class heroes, and both found common ground in despising southern grammar school, or grammar school adjacent, types like me. It also explains the hate for SKS on here
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
There are only two times since WWII when an incumbent has "voluntarily" stepped aside - LBJ & Nixon.
Why would Biden think he deserved to be in such company?
I also think there's a psychological point too, which acts against standing aside. He saw Trump win in 2016 after deciding not to run, and he must think that he would have won in 2016 had he run, and that would have prevented the Trump Presidency and the full MAGA takeover of the GOP.
So it's his duty to run again. Who else is going to defeat Trump again and save American democracy?
Biden chose Harris to balance the ticket. Black, female. However, she is extremely off putting to many Black people, because of her history as a prosecutor. In the pre-Black Lives Matter era that wouldn't have been so, but times change. She also has very poor ratings with the liberal side of the Democratic party.
In short, she was chosen because she had a power base and a back story that sounded good from the traditional rules of politics in the US. The problem is that the backstory has become a bit toxic and she is a bit of dud.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Biden is 81 and steadily deteriorating physically and mentally.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
About 7% of the population at large have been privately educated.
38.4% of Durham students went to a private school.
Not only that, the Pink Panther went to Uni there too.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
I cannot help but feel that Harris has not been used to the best of her abilities during the Biden presidency and/or has been poorly advised.
Yes she may have failings but I don’t think it was inevitable that she would end up where she is now.
She's in a tricky situation because she doesn't know whether she has to prepare for taking over the job of president or running for president in a Democratic primary. Since nothing the VP does generally cuts through very much there's something to be said for being quiet. If she was suddenly thrust into the presidency then she'd have a lot of opportunity to define herself.
She's well positioned up to take over from Biden as candidate (as opposed to becoming president, then running for another term) but nobody intends for that to happen.
And they queue up for their free bus passes, get free TV licences, get winter fuel allowances etc. These benefits are clearly needed for poorer pensioners but they are so absurdly focused and unaffordable at a time when we have such large deficits and so many better priorities. Eventually, some government is going to have the courage to do something about this.
You are dreaming David, you need to be about a hundred to get a TV licence, winter allowance is a fraction of a % of the tax I pay and I woudl not stoop to use a bus so get zilch. Grandson does make use of the free pass mind you. It would cost significantly more to means test those benefits than it costs. Pensioners with money do not use buses, you have to be really really old to get TV licence and fuel allowance is not that much and again would cost more to means test. Given you are on the cusp I am surprised you ahve fallen into the bash and starve a pensioner brigade because I don't get it brigade.
"Would not stoop to use a bus"
This is the attitude that has basically bankrupted the country. The bus services that young people and poorer people use to get to the workplace have been cut by roughly half since 2010.
That means that you have to live within walking or cycling distance of work, forcing millions of young people into only a few square miles in the city centre (or London), supercharging the housing crisis. Alternatively, they spend years saving up enough money for driving lessons, car insurance and the car itself.
Meanwhile rich pensioners, who have much higher rates of car ownership, get a free bus pass...
Under 22 year olds in Scotland are also eligible for a bus pass.
Does not matter if that bus does not exist.
I'm against all forms of free public transport on the basis that the money would be better spent on more routes and more frequent services.
There is of course no such thing as a free lunch or bus ride - it is all paid for somewhere.
I suspect the largest 'free' transport in the UK is the 'free' provision of a road network, extensive though round here full of pot holes, for cars.
Car tax yields £7.4bn per year, and fuel duty £25.1bn for the State, local authorities in England made £923m from parking activities, £230m from congestion charges, and £370m in tolls. £5.7bn was also paid in VAT on vehicle purchases, and £1.2bn in insurance premium tax.
Spending on roads is not the only source of costs associated with motoring, so this is a bogus comparison. For example, that insurance premium tax could be compared to the costs of road traffic accidents (1,766 killed and 28,941 seriously injured in 2022). The fuel duty could be compared to costs associated with air pollution (~49k deaths per year) and global warming.
I also missed off the economic benefits of people being independently mobile, and not confined outside large cities to public transport schedules which severely limit mobility of labour.
There was some interesting stuff about motor cars in the early days of popular adoption - a foaming at the mouth, among certain types, at the idea of the lower orders gaining more mobility. Bit like attacks on the introduction of railways.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
There is a very substantial world out there which has no intention of going to London for university or any other purpose; many schools in the north make almost no applications to London Universities. Happily there are world class universities in the midlands, north and Scotland (which has a disproportionately high number of world class outfits). There is also a good one in Cambridge and the one at Oxford has things to commend it too.
I'm probably going to be in the market for a new (or 2 years old) car this year. I have always bought cars outright, and we have the money to do so without financing. But should I consider leasing?
TIA.
If it’s to be an electric car then lease it, if it’s to be a petrol car then buy it.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
About 7% of the population at large have been privately educated.
38.4% of Durham students went to a private school. 36.9% of St Andrews students, 36.6% RAC students, 34.5% of Exeter students.
Topping's list is essentially correlated with that.
Durham I think has the highest percentage of private school students in the UK to the extent there are “overseas” clubs for working class and northern students (and not in the ironic way they existed when I was at Kings College Durham (Newcastle) 30 years ago),
What is also worth saying is that Durham is not a cheap place to study - your student loan won’t pay for your rent (that hit £8000 for the next year and will be higher again in 25/6 ) and the pubs / shops don’t employ students so you won’t get a term time job if you need one
On topic, this is a small but quite interesting story (and a fairly long read) about the disconnect between the new GOP orthodoxy and people's actual lives.
A GOP Texas school board member campaigned against schools indoctrinating kids. Then she read the curriculum.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/15/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore/ ...Gore, the co-host of a far-right online talk show, had promised that she would be a strong Republican voice on the nonpartisan school board. Citing “small town, conservative Christian values,” she pledged to inspect educational materials for inappropriate messages about sexuality and race and remove them from every campus in the 7,700-student Granbury Independent School District, an hour southwest of Fort Worth. “Over the years our American Education System has been hijacked by Leftists looking to indoctrinate our kids into the ‘progressive’ way of thinking, and yes, they’ve tried to do this in Granbury ISD,” she wrote in a September 2021 Facebook post, two months before the election. “I cannot sit by and watch their twisted worldview infiltrate Granbury ISD.”
But after taking office and examining hundreds of pages of curriculum, Gore was shocked by what she found — and didn’t find.
The pervasive indoctrination she had railed against simply did not exist. Children were not being sexualized, and she could find no examples of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that examines systemic racism. She’d examined curriculum related to social-emotional learning, which has come under attack by Christian conservatives who say it encourages children to question gender roles and prioritizes feelings over biblical teachings. Instead, Gore found the materials taught children “how to be a good friend, a good human.”..
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Topping is ranking them as finishing schools, not academically.
Although interestingly, as I might have mentioned for the 800 times before on here, Eton at least (perhaps other schools also) heavily restricts its Oxbridge applicants so the market (of bright people at various universities) is skewed.
Eton isn't that big; nor are all of its pupils particularly bright.
Interesting you say that. You will find that Eton is supremely difficult to get into these days and pushes its students extremely hard. Now, this is amongst the set of those who are looking at private schools. There are no doubt super-bright pupils of Hartlepool High. But for private schools, today, Eton (and Winchester) are the most academically demanding.
Which means that it is likely that most of its pupils are particularly bright.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Biden is 81 and steadily deteriorating physically and mentally.
That's not just pretty unlikely, that's unique.
The tragedy is that Trump is 77 and also deteriorating fast. While Biden is 4 years older it seems clear (to me anyway) that Trump’s diet and personal habits more than make up the difference.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Insecure much?
Don't get all snitty I said it wasn't academically. "blah blah blah ranked unis in the world blah blah".
Not remotely insecure, I’ve really got nothing to be insecure about, and I was making the point that not only are they highly ranked academically but the social element there is also very high - I would guess higher than those in your rankings but they blend in because London is quite big funnily enough.
NOT REMOTELY INSECURE.
Okey dokey.
Leaving out Imperial, UCL and LSE does seem like a gap, though.
My eldest daughter decided on UCL - a mixture of academic reputation and fashionability.
Yes I stand corrected on those. My issue was with the super-defensive nature of boules's response.
I'm probably going to be in the market for a new (or 2 years old) car this year. I have always bought cars outright, and we have the money to do so without financing. But should I consider leasing?
TIA.
If it’s to be an electric car then lease it, if it’s to be a petrol car then buy it.
(Your ‘less than’ symbol makes it impossible to reply, Vanilla bug).
If you aren't particularly arsed about exactly what car then lease because there are always mega bargains to be had when dealer networks are overstocked in something. Like the great 840i GC clear out of last year.
And they queue up for their free bus passes, get free TV licences, get winter fuel allowances etc. These benefits are clearly needed for poorer pensioners but they are so absurdly focused and unaffordable at a time when we have such large deficits and so many better priorities. Eventually, some government is going to have the courage to do something about this.
You are dreaming David, you need to be about a hundred to get a TV licence, winter allowance is a fraction of a % of the tax I pay and I woudl not stoop to use a bus so get zilch. Grandson does make use of the free pass mind you. It would cost significantly more to means test those benefits than it costs. Pensioners with money do not use buses, you have to be really really old to get TV licence and fuel allowance is not that much and again would cost more to means test. Given you are on the cusp I am surprised you ahve fallen into the bash and starve a pensioner brigade because I don't get it brigade.
"Would not stoop to use a bus"
This is the attitude that has basically bankrupted the country. The bus services that young people and poorer people use to get to the workplace have been cut by roughly half since 2010.
That means that you have to live within walking or cycling distance of work, forcing millions of young people into only a few square miles in the city centre (or London), supercharging the housing crisis. Alternatively, they spend years saving up enough money for driving lessons, car insurance and the car itself.
Meanwhile rich pensioners, who have much higher rates of car ownership, get a free bus pass...
Under 22 year olds in Scotland are also eligible for a bus pass.
Does not matter if that bus does not exist.
I'm against all forms of free public transport on the basis that the money would be better spent on more routes and more frequent services.
There is of course no such thing as a free lunch or bus ride - it is all paid for somewhere.
I suspect the largest 'free' transport in the UK is the 'free' provision of a road network, extensive though round here full of pot holes, for cars.
Car tax yields £7.4bn per year, and fuel duty £25.1bn for the State, local authorities in England made £923m from parking activities, £230m from congestion charges, and £370m in tolls. £5.7bn was also paid in VAT on vehicle purchases, and £1.2bn in insurance premium tax.
Spending on roads is not the only source of costs associated with motoring, so this is a bogus comparison. For example, that insurance premium tax could be compared to the costs of road traffic accidents (1,766 killed and 28,941 seriously injured in 2022). The fuel duty could be compared to costs associated with air pollution (~49k deaths per year) and global warming.
In which case you would also have to add the economic and social benefits that come with road transport.
Perhaps starting with there being no food in the shops without it.
One curious thing I've found is that non-car traffic (vans, lorries, buses etc) has increased far more quickly than the economy over the last 30 years. Hence the rather extreme congestion we get in some areas.
Online shopping, perhaps? Consumerism?
Both car traffic and non-car traffic respond to economic conditions, but there is something else going on that affects non-car traffic in particular.
I'm probably going to be in the market for a new (or 2 years old) car this year. I have always bought cars outright, and we have the money to do so without financing. But should I consider leasing?
TIA.
If it’s to be an electric car then lease it, if it’s to be a petrol car then buy it.
(Your ‘less than’ symbol makes it impossible to reply, Vanilla bug).
And if it is petrol start looking sooner rather than later - Ford (and I expect others) are threatening to delay sales to avoid fines - so if you look in September a January delivery date really wouldn’t surprise be
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
Mainly through house prices is kind of the point. The older generation were able to afford houses; the current one cannot. Granted some of that will trickle down, especially for those of us in the financially fortunate position of being only children without cousins. But waiting for the older generation to die in order to own a home doesn't seem to be a terribly good way of arranging things.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
There is a very substantial world out there which has no intention of going to London for university or any other purpose; many schools in the north make almost no applications to London Universities. Happily there are world class universities in the midlands, north and Scotland (which has a disproportionately high number of world class outfits). There is also a good one in Cambridge and the one at Oxford has things to commend it too.
Absolutely agree, I was merely contesting that Topping’s original list,ex-Oxbridge, of universities that have social cachet and connections which leaves out those three London Universities is bizarre.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
There is a very substantial world out there which has no intention of going to London for university or any other purpose; many schools in the north make almost no applications to London Universities. Happily there are world class universities in the midlands, north and Scotland (which has a disproportionately high number of world class outfits). There is also a good one in Cambridge and the one at Oxford has things to commend it too.
Absolutely agree, I was merely contesting that Topping’s original list,ex-Oxbridge, of universities that have social cachet and connections which leaves out those three London Universities is bizarre.
Is that merely what you were contesting, eh? Unlike @Malmesbury who also pointed out the omission.
"I'm guessing that your survey base was a bit dim..."
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Want to keep the children's rooms for when they visit*. Keep the place they've lived for 30 years.
*One Spanish chap, friend of my wife's, semi-retired to a place in Spain. Basically a few miles inland from the Costa Del Sol - only Spanish live there and its cheapish. He came from around there - his theory was that while the children are largely based in the UK, they will come out to his 4 bed house with a swimming pool for free holidays. When grandkids arrive...
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Your point is entirely valid, however I would suggest the reason is a combination of:
1) Inertia (effort is tiring; even when the result is worthwhile, moving house is a massive, massive hassle.) 2) You build your life around where you live. Over time, the most convenient place for your life becomes exactly where you live. 3) Emotional connections (this is where the family grew up!) 4) Getting used to the status quo (we may not use bedrooms two, three, four or five for 360 days of the year, but without them where will the family stay when they come to visit us?) 5) Stamp duty suppresses liquidity 6) People have got so used to the phenomenon or rising house prices that taking the bulk of their capital out of housing is frightening (what if house prices accelerate after I have sold?)
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Insecure much?
Don't get all snitty I said it wasn't academically. "blah blah blah ranked unis in the world blah blah".
Not remotely insecure, I’ve really got nothing to be insecure about, and I was making the point that not only are they highly ranked academically but the social element there is also very high - I would guess higher than those in your rankings but they blend in because London is quite big funnily enough.
NOT REMOTELY INSECURE.
Okey dokey.
Leaving out Imperial, UCL and LSE does seem like a gap, though.
My eldest daughter decided on UCL - a mixture of academic reputation and fashionability.
Yes I stand corrected on those. My issue was with the super-defensive nature of boules's response.
I am horrifically hungover so it didn’t come over particularly as I intended.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Want to keep the children's rooms for when they visit*. Keep the place they've lived for 30 years.
*One Spanish chap, friend of my wife's, semi-retired to a place in Spain. Basically a few miles inland from the Costa Del Sol - only Spanish live there and its cheapish. He came from around there - his theory was that while the children are largely based in the UK, they will come out to his 4 bed house with a swimming pool for free holidays. When grandkids arrive...
Yes I do misunderstand people's obsession with family. I haven't had kids, and regard the rest of my family as people I don't have much in common with. I mostly socialise with people I met through shared interests and hobbies. And I don't like visiting the same place over and over again so a parent living abroad wouldn't be much of a draw.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
I'm probably going to be in the market for a new (or 2 years old) car this year. I have always bought cars outright, and we have the money to do so without financing. But should I consider leasing?
TIA.
If it’s to be an electric car then lease it, if it’s to be a petrol car then buy it.
(Your ‘less than’ symbol makes it impossible to reply, Vanilla bug).
If you aren't particularly arsed about exactly what car then lease because there are always mega bargains to be had when dealer networks are overstocked in something. Like the great 840i GC clear out of last year.
Still won’t beat the £120 a month top of the range Passat deal I got back in 2016.
VW ended up building a batch as it was easier than trying to extract themselves from the binding contracts everyone had been instructed to sign and return immediately
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Want to keep the children's rooms for when they visit*. Keep the place they've lived for 30 years.
*One Spanish chap, friend of my wife's, semi-retired to a place in Spain. Basically a few miles inland from the Costa Del Sol - only Spanish live there and its cheapish. He came from around there - his theory was that while the children are largely based in the UK, they will come out to his 4 bed house with a swimming pool for free holidays. When grandkids arrive...
My parents and I knocked around quite comfortably in an unremarkable 3 bedroom semi while I was growing up. I moved out at 18, and they existed quite happily there for another 20 years. However, the birth of my third child prompted them to look for a bigger house, because when the five of us visited it all felt rather crowded. (There were a few other factors - principally that the suburb I grew up in had got rather busier; they moved out a few miles to a suburb which was more like the old one had been forty years previously when they'd moved in.) They only live a few miles away. It's not as if we ever stay over. It's a very nice house, however, and ten years on they're still happy with their decision.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Insecure much?
Don't get all snitty I said it wasn't academically. "blah blah blah ranked unis in the world blah blah".
Not remotely insecure, I’ve really got nothing to be insecure about, and I was making the point that not only are they highly ranked academically but the social element there is also very high - I would guess higher than those in your rankings but they blend in because London is quite big funnily enough.
NOT REMOTELY INSECURE.
Okey dokey.
Leaving out Imperial, UCL and LSE does seem like a gap, though.
My eldest daughter decided on UCL - a mixture of academic reputation and fashionability.
Yes I stand corrected on those. My issue was with the super-defensive nature of boules's response.
I am horrifically hungover so it didn’t come over particularly as I intended.
Ah sozza. We've all been there. And as for last night, let's not get into whether you were at White's or the Turf...
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
I’m guessing that your survey base was a bit dim as they left out a few of the top ranked unis in the world such as Imperial, UCL and LSE which attract a lot of moneyed and connected people who are too bright to waste their time at Durham and Exeter etc and also get to spend their university years partying in London rather than some shitty provincial clubs.
Insecure much?
Don't get all snitty I said it wasn't academically. "blah blah blah ranked unis in the world blah blah".
Not remotely insecure, I’ve really got nothing to be insecure about, and I was making the point that not only are they highly ranked academically but the social element there is also very high - I would guess higher than those in your rankings but they blend in because London is quite big funnily enough.
NOT REMOTELY INSECURE.
Okey dokey.
Leaving out Imperial, UCL and LSE does seem like a gap, though.
My eldest daughter decided on UCL - a mixture of academic reputation and fashionability.
Yes I stand corrected on those. My issue was with the super-defensive nature of boules's response.
I am horrifically hungover so it didn’t come over particularly as I intended.
Ah sozza. We've all been there. Let's not get into whether you were at White's or the Turf...
Ha, they aren’t the only socially acceptable clubs, there are some you left out in etc etc.
Wait until you hear what some car drivers have been up to
The Embankment used to be fantastic early in the morning heading City-wise. Screaming along at all kinds of speeds (apols Dura it was only a Bandit) with other likeminded folk.
Sadly all gone now as they've messed around with the road and you can't be in a car going eastwards as the traffic is always static.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
It's just one of the costs of moving house Of course it does, you have to pay for kitchen bathroom(s) reception room(s) which are a disproportionately large amount of a smaller property Does it matter? As long as you pay a fair price it will hold its value A spare bedroom is enough and will encourage them to go when no longer welcome. Or book a B&B
IMHO it’s (sometimes literally) shit like this that convinces me that no improvement in the economy or stopping any number of small boat crossings will help the Tories. There is a drip (geddit?) of stories every day about how basic public services are not working properly. The basics, water, postal services, courts…there’s a palpable sense of decline. I live 10 miles from the Kent coast and have never seen a migrant off a small boat but my village no longer has a bus service and we’ve had weeks without broadband in the last 12 months.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
+ far too much stuff, making moving a nightmare.
I'm planning a book sale, although I admit I haven't got round to it yet
Hungary’s latest Russia scandal: @direkt36 reveals that Orbán’s foreign ministry has been compromised by an ongoing Russian cyberespionage campaign. They even hacked the encrypted channel also transmitting confidential NATO & EU material.
..When MFA Péter Szijjártó received the Order of Friendship from Sergey Lavrov - awarded by Putin himself - he already knew well that his ministry has been completely hacked by Russia.
Wait until you hear what some car drivers have been up to
It's quite bizarre how people will define others by their mode of transport. When I drive my car, I'm a motorist, a normal, well-balanced member of society acceptably piloting his ton-and-a-half of steel at lethal speed around the neighbourhood. When a get on my bike, I'm a cyclist, an eejit, a subversive danger to society, liable to cause all sorts of mayhem on my few kilos of slowly pedalled metal.
Wait until you hear what some car drivers have been up to
The Embankment used to be fantastic early in the morning heading City-wise. Screaming along at all kinds of speeds (apols Dura it was only a Bandit) with other likeminded folk.
Sadly all gone now as they've messed around with the road and you can't be in a car going eastwards as the traffic is always static.
And I am reminded of the chap who got so upset by me trying to cross a road at green light by Kew bridge, many years back.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
Mainly through house prices is kind of the point. The older generation were able to afford houses; the current one cannot. Granted some of that will trickle down, especially for those of us in the financially fortunate position of being only children without cousins. But waiting for the older generation to die in order to own a home doesn't seem to be a terribly good way of arranging things.
I think the point that wealthier pensioners are more likely to survive for longer, and so will make up a larger fraction of the pensioner population is an important effect, and one we should bear in mind when looking at voting intention.
If wealthier people are more likely to vote Tory, because they have wealth to protect from taxation, and wealthier people live longer, then it shouldn't be surprising that the older age groups tend towards voting Tory. Left-wing voters have died.
This is a well-known effect for the sex balance of the population due to women living longer than men, such that, at age 78, there are 232 thousand men in the UK and 269 thousand women, a 46:54 ratio.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Your point is entirely valid, however I would suggest the reason is a combination of:
1) Inertia (effort is tiring; even when the result is worthwhile, moving house is a massive, massive hassle.) 2) You build your life around where you live. Over time, the most convenient place for your life becomes exactly where you live. 3) Emotional connections (this is where the family grew up!) 4) Getting used to the status quo (we may not use bedrooms two, three, four or five for 360 days of the year, but without them where will the family stay when they come to visit us?) 5) Stamp duty suppresses liquidity 6) People have got so used to the phenomenon or rising house prices that taking the bulk of their capital out of housing is frightening (what if house prices accelerate after I have sold?)
And whilst some of those are reasons that could be fixed by different policy choices (stamp duty, say), a lot of them are about the human psyche. Those are harder to change, and maybe they shouldn't be.
Bottom line: Build More Decent Homes In Decent Places. There's no fundamental reason why we should be short of the blooming things, except inertia.
(One thing on the family visits thing. Even though it feels sensible to have spare rooms for visting offspring, the whole thing got a lot less fraught for us once parents and I agreed that we'd stay in a Travelinn for such visits.)
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
From nieces and nephews and sons/daughters of friends I can say with some authority that, ex-Oxbridge, the pecking order for universities is as follows:
-1 (out of reach coz of the roylz): St. Andrews 0 - Durham 1 - Exeter, "Royal Agricultural University" (previously RAC) 2 - Newcastle, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, UEA (for arts esp History of Art), Reading (for ag) 3 - the rest
And no I don't mean academically.
Looking back, aged 18, I think I saw university as essentially a prize for having done well at school, and didn't really want that prize to be 'lots more work', certainly not 'lots more work in a small town miles from anywhere' - so I didn't really consider Oxbridge. I don't think I really considered that there might be life advantages for me in going there - the impression I got was that the main benefit in Oxbridge was kudos for the school.
Clearly some people from my school were a bit more savvy at 18 than I was and headed for Oxbridge.
But after that, from Greater Manchester, the universities people aimed for were those in a big city in a different local television area (nothing wrong with universities of Manchester or Liverpool, but it wasn't really seen as the done thing to stay so close to home) - so Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol. Of those 8 - notwithstanding the earlier point about going away - the closest were by far the most popular: so Sheffield, Nottingham, Leeds. London was on few radars because it was so far away and it had so many universities that it wasn't immediately obvious which the 'main' university was.
Aside from Oxbridge, there were few applications for small town/city universities, apart from, weirdly, Warwick (which I suppose technically was actually in Coventry so not the small town it pretended.)
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Only your imagination is he the “Blair of his age” because literally no one else says that. In fact the uniform consensus is that he is no Blair despite adopting some aspects of Blairism. Read some political journalism FFS. There is life outside the Daily Telegraph. Then join Isam and BJO in recovery.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
I think "man bites dog" applies to all these stories.
But it's the telegraph so merely "disingenuous" is better than their usual standard.
I had the thought that the reason that Biden chose Harris for VP is because she is so unpopular electorally.
If Biden had a well liked VP then he would have come under intense pressure to step down this year.
Is Sleepy Joe more cunning than we realise ?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but I do wonder if Biden and his team could have done more over the last four years to improve and raise the profile of the VP. That would I guess have meant the Dems were in an overall better position today.
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Every time Kamala appears on TV the Dem polling falls, she’s a huge drag on the ticket.
Biden would have been much better off picking someone more popular, who would either be in a position to take over this year or give the impression of being able to to take over if Biden’s health deteriorates further.
But he picked the black woman, primarily because she was a black woman.
TBF he also went for someone who wasn't going to bollocks it up, and she didn't bollocks it up. There were other potential picks who were also black women, but they weren't as provably sure-footed as Kamala is. She's not charismatic, but she can deliver the lines she's given and she doesn't gaffe.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Only your imagination is he the “Blair of his age” because literally no one else says that. In fact the uniform consensus is that he is no Blair despite adopting some aspects of Blairism. Read some political journalism FFS. There is life outside the Daily Telegraph. Then join Isam and BJO in recovery.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
It was click bait just for you but Doug Seal beat you to it.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
Mainly through house prices is kind of the point. The older generation were able to afford houses; the current one cannot. Granted some of that will trickle down, especially for those of us in the financially fortunate position of being only children without cousins. But waiting for the older generation to die in order to own a home doesn't seem to be a terribly good way of arranging things.
I think the point that wealthier pensioners are more likely to survive for longer, and so will make up a larger fraction of the pensioner population is an important effect, and one we should bear in mind when looking at voting intention.
If wealthier people are more likely to vote Tory, because they have wealth to protect from taxation, and wealthier people live longer, then it shouldn't be surprising that the older age groups tend towards voting Tory. Left-wing voters have died.
This is a well-known effect for the sex balance of the population due to women living longer than men, such that, at age 78, there are 232 thousand men in the UK and 269 thousand women, a 46:54 ratio.
Less true that it was. CDE pensioners are more Tory, AB more spread over the parties.
I think selective survival is impacting the Leave voters more than older Remainers for example, and while that is a dormant issue the underlying value set defines attitudes to other cultural issues.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
And it seems these days you usually end up wiring the completion money to a fraudster
I knew some walloper on here would fall for this. "A remarkable 52mph". In a 20mph zone no less!
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
That's over an hour, the scoffers will scoff.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
4. Blood pressure from believing everything you read in the Telegraph
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
The war on cyclists has no rational basis; it's purely to terrify a few more fearful souls into voting Conservative.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
Wise to downsize early though, before a crisis hits. Also it helps establish a new social network in the new place.
I shall substantially downsize when I fully retire. My folks did and its the smartest thing they ever did, while my uncle stuck with a house in the country and he and his wife are effectively housebound without taxis now.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
The war on cyclists has no rational basis; it's purely to terrify a few more fearful souls into voting Conservative.
How bizarre. Most of the cyclists round me vote conservative,
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I dont think Starmer scares anyone. He;s just boring.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
In the five minutes since I posted this, I've done a little survey from my desk looking out the front of my house at the little slice of suburbia in front of me:
Cars: 58 - none travelling recklessly - hard to spot any going significantly over 30 - but all of them at potentially life-endangering speeds. Vans: 4 (ditto) Buses: 1 Cyclists: 4 - one trying quite hard, and going around 15mph; the other three I would describe as 'pootling'. Pedestrians 8 (including two who came to the door: a postman and a lady from Staffordshire who kindly brought me some oatcakes. And one who got on the bus, so a slight ambiguity about modes there. Where's everyone else?) Dogs: 1
If there is deathtrappery at work, it's clear what the source is.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Only your imagination is he the “Blair of his age” because literally no one else says that. In fact the uniform consensus is that he is no Blair despite adopting some aspects of Blairism. Read some political journalism FFS. There is life outside the Daily Telegraph. Then join Isam and BJO in recovery.
so in effect he is Sunak without the experience ?
thats not going to solve anything.
Experience counts for zip if nothing has been learned in nearly two years, and every knee jerk reactionary announcement is a response to a Daily Mail headline
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
Ironically, my (mid-70s) parents are moving house today, and they had the best estate agent experience ever, to the point where the agent said that this had never happened before. They turned up for an appointment to discuss their house, and a walk-in couple arrived a few minutes later and were speaking to another agent, basically they described what they were looking for and it was exactly what my parents were selling. They did a viewing that afternoon and had the sale agreed three days later as a cash buy! Their buy was a little more complex, but the chain all completed last week and they’re moving in as we speak.
As a working class Yorkshireman I have to say I loved all the oik chat on the last thread.
My experience of Oxford was that public school toffs went round like they owned the place, comprehensively educated Northerners could set themselves up as working class heroes, and both found common ground in despising southern grammar school, or grammar school adjacent, types like me. It also explains the hate for SKS on here
My son's friends seem mildly surprised that he actually has a house with running water and power. Their understanding of Scotland is remarkably incomplete. But he is loving his time there. So much so that right now a life in academia looks highly attractive to him.
I struggled through university basically because I was at the wrong one. I did the Oxford entrance as my best friend was doing it and was as surprised as anyone when I got in. I was an dysthymic antelope in a university full of self-confident hyenas (including Liz Truss and Sian Berry at the time). However, two and a half decades later, I went back to Birkbeck and it went so swimmingly that I’m thinking of doing a doctorate.
"...I was an dysthymic antelope in a university full of self-confident hyenas..."
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Speak for yourself.
Starmer and his team did pretty well yesterday getting those 6 immediate priorities across. They were duly, individually, listed on a couple of the news outlets that I heard, and got a lot of coverage. I am not usually good at reciting lists, but they stuck in the memory enough that can recite them now, something that I can't say I could do with his earlier equivalent "missions". Boosting economic growth, cutting NHS waiting lists, border security and fighting criminal gangs, tackling anti-social behaviour, more teachers and a publically owned energy company investing in green technology. All accompanied by a bit of spin afterwards about how other stuff not on the list will also happen, just as happened in 1997, I remember the national minimum wage being cited in that context.
By contrast, just like Doug I can't remember what on earth Sunak was on about the day before.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
The roads around here were getting better, in terms of the whole car thing.
The problem with the furious cyclists (and their brethren the furious ebikers) is that they are using infrastructure for pedestrians (pavements) and for more traditional cyclists (the increasing number of segregated cycle lanes).
If you are in a moderately narrow, segregated cycle lane, say, cruising along at 10mph, and someone is coming towards you at 25mph that is really not an enjoyable experience. When you add in the weight of the ebikes, and the very large boxes the delivery guys add on... You are being approached by an aggressive moped rider, in reality.
Mainly through their house price, unless they sell it it will actually be their children who get most of the benefit of that through inheritance
I'd also add, that many see their house price as an ultimate kind of insurance.
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
I don't understand why so many people stick with large, difficult-to-maintain houses. Buy somewhere smaller and cheaper, pocket the cash, spend it on travelling. Or whatever floats your boat.
Stamp duty Too old for the stress of moving A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young Having children and grandchildren to stay
The stress of moving cannot be underestimated, particularly for older people. The system has become more complicated in recent years, not less, and less personal. Estate agents and solicitors don’t really want to speak to you anymore, they want you to use their new fangled apps. Younger folks can struggle by with that, someone approaching, or in, retirement finds it much harder.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
Wise to downsize early though, before a crisis hits. Also it helps establish a new social network in the new place.
I shall substantially downsize when I fully retire. My folks did and its the smartest thing they ever did, while my uncle stuck with a house in the country and he and his wife are effectively housebound without taxis now.
I agree, and there is much to be said for a good social/support network. People scoff at sleepy seaside towns filled with retirees, but these places have social clubs and facilities and infrastructure to accommodate that. I can think of worse ways to live.
Hm. Perhaps. I agree there is sub-optimality in this.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Things that kill more people a year than cyclists:
Cows Lightning Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
The war on cyclists has no rational basis; it's purely to terrify a few more fearful souls into voting Conservative.
I don't think it's a co-ordinated effort with a purpose. I think it's just that some people find cyclists irritating.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Speak for yourself.
Starmer and his team did pretty well yesterday getting those 6 immediate priorities across. They were duly, individually, listed on a couple of the news outlets that I heard, and got a lot of coverage. I am not usually good at reciting lists, but they stuck in the memory enough that can recite them now, something that I can't say I could do with his earlier equivalent "missions". Boosting economic growth, cutting NHS waiting lists, border security and fighting criminal gangs, tackling anti-social behaviour, more teachers and a publically owned energy company investing in green technology. All accompanied by a bit of spin afterwards about how other stuff not on the list will also happen, just as happened in 1997, I remember the national minimum wage being cited in that context.
By contrast, just like Doug I can't remember what on earth Sunak was on about the day before.
They had 6 priorities none of which amounted to anything much.
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
And Sunak’s big speech on Monday is on everyone’s lips.
This site is getting beyond parody.
Starmer is meant to be the coming man. The Blair of this age. The answer to dishwater dull,
Only your imagination is he the “Blair of his age” because literally no one else says that. In fact the uniform consensus is that he is no Blair despite adopting some aspects of Blairism. Read some political journalism FFS. There is life outside the Daily Telegraph. Then join Isam and BJO in recovery.
so in effect he is Sunak without the experience ?
thats not going to solve anything.
Experience counts for zip if nothing has been learned in nearly two years, and every knee jerk reactionary announcement is a response to a Daily Mail headline
Well that accounts for Starmer, but isnt Sunak doing the same ?
24 hours after Starmer's big announcement on his priorities and nobody gives a shit.
Is he that bad ?
No, because we're not in an election campaign, and there was nothing in there too scary (or new).
Or nothing in there at all.
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
Yes. And would scare the nimbies. And those who want to keep the supply low to protect their own properties. Although I can't imagine any government proposing to build enough houses so the price stops going up.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
You are forgetting the left green vote - while, often, such people generally support "building more houses", they almost always object to every single actual development.
Very common to see a coalition of NIMBYism protesting to the council etc.
So that's more people Starmer doesn't want to scare.
Comments
38.4% of Durham students went to a private school.
36.9% of St Andrews students, 36.6% RAC students, 34.5% of Exeter students.
Topping's list is essentially correlated with that.
https://thetab.com/uk/2022/09/16/these-are-the-universities-with-the-most-private-school-students-2022-273947
Spending on roads is £11.8bn.
https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/economics
Clearly some people from my school were a bit more savvy at 18 than I was and headed for Oxbridge.
But after that, from Greater Manchester, the universities people aimed for were those in a big city in a different local television area (nothing wrong with universities of Manchester or Liverpool, but it wasn't really seen as the done thing to stay so close to home) - so Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol. Of those 8 - notwithstanding the earlier point about going away - the closest were by far the most popular: so Sheffield, Nottingham, Leeds. London was on few radars because it was so far away and it had so many universities that it wasn't immediately obvious which the 'main' university was.
Aside from Oxbridge, there were few applications for small town/city universities, apart from, weirdly, Warwick (which I suppose technically was actually in Coventry so not the small town it pretended.)
But overall I think it's just pretty unlikely for any party to replace an incumbent President who hasn't completely imploded, so even in an alternate universe with a more popular VP I think we'd still be looking at a Trump/Biden rematch.
Biden would have been much better off picking someone more popular, who would either be in a position to take over this year or give the impression of being able to to take over if Biden’s health deteriorates further.
But he picked the black woman, primarily because she was a black woman.
Okey dokey.
Why would Biden think he deserved to be in such company?
I also think there's a psychological point too, which acts against standing aside. He saw Trump win in 2016 after deciding not to run, and he must think that he would have won in 2016 had he run, and that would have prevented the Trump Presidency and the full MAGA takeover of the GOP.
So it's his duty to run again. Who else is going to defeat Trump again and save American democracy?
Clearly she's a victim.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/palestinian-student-full-of-joy-after-oct-7-attack-claims-visa-revoked-on-security-grounds/ar-BB1mygYn?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=25cfb3dac56049b68d6ba5f29c5ef55c&ei=58
My eldest daughter decided on UCL - a mixture of academic reputation and fashionability.
Yes she may have failings but I don’t think it was inevitable that she would end up where she is now.
Perhaps starting with there being no food in the shops without it.
In short, she was chosen because she had a power base and a back story that sounded good from the traditional rules of politics in the US. The problem is that the backstory has become a bit toxic and she is a bit of dud.
That's not just pretty unlikely, that's unique.
She's well positioned up to take over from Biden as candidate (as opposed to becoming president, then running for another term) but nobody intends for that to happen.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/16/motorists-warned-petrol-car-shortages-electric-car-targets/
(Your ‘less than’ symbol makes it impossible to reply, Vanilla bug).
What is also worth saying is that Durham is not a cheap place to study - your student loan won’t pay for your rent (that hit £8000 for the next year and will be higher again in 25/6 ) and the pubs / shops don’t employ students so you won’t get a term time job if you need one
"If either of Beth and I get really ill, we can sell the house, move to a smaller flat and fund the care that way."
May not be sensible, but people do think like that.
A GOP Texas school board member campaigned against schools indoctrinating kids. Then she read the curriculum.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/15/texas-granbury-isd-school-board-courtney-gore/
...Gore, the co-host of a far-right online talk show, had promised that she would be a strong Republican voice on the nonpartisan school board. Citing “small town, conservative Christian values,” she pledged to inspect educational materials for inappropriate messages about sexuality and race and remove them from every campus in the 7,700-student Granbury Independent School District, an hour southwest of Fort Worth. “Over the years our American Education System has been hijacked by Leftists looking to indoctrinate our kids into the ‘progressive’ way of thinking, and yes, they’ve tried to do this in Granbury ISD,” she wrote in a September 2021 Facebook post, two months before the election. “I cannot sit by and watch their twisted worldview infiltrate Granbury ISD.”
But after taking office and examining hundreds of pages of curriculum, Gore was shocked by what she found — and didn’t find.
The pervasive indoctrination she had railed against simply did not exist. Children were not being sexualized, and she could find no examples of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that examines systemic racism. She’d examined curriculum related to social-emotional learning, which has come under attack by Christian conservatives who say it encourages children to question gender roles and prioritizes feelings over biblical teachings. Instead, Gore found the materials taught children “how to be a good friend, a good human.”..
Which means that it is likely that most of its pupils are particularly bright.
Online shopping, perhaps? Consumerism?
Both car traffic and non-car traffic respond to economic conditions, but there is something else going on that affects non-car traffic in particular.
Granted some of that will trickle down, especially for those of us in the financially fortunate position of being only children without cousins. But waiting for the older generation to die in order to own a home doesn't seem to be a terribly good way of arranging things.
"I'm guessing that your survey base was a bit dim..."
Pretty chippy imo.
*One Spanish chap, friend of my wife's, semi-retired to a place in Spain. Basically a few miles inland from the Costa Del Sol - only Spanish live there and its cheapish. He came from around there - his theory was that while the children are largely based in the UK, they will come out to his 4 bed house with a swimming pool for free holidays. When grandkids arrive...
1) Inertia (effort is tiring; even when the result is worthwhile, moving house is a massive, massive hassle.)
2) You build your life around where you live. Over time, the most convenient place for your life becomes exactly where you live.
3) Emotional connections (this is where the family grew up!)
4) Getting used to the status quo (we may not use bedrooms two, three, four or five for 360 days of the year, but without them where will the family stay when they come to visit us?)
5) Stamp duty suppresses liquidity
6) People have got so used to the phenomenon or rising house prices that taking the bulk of their capital out of housing is frightening (what if house prices accelerate after I have sold?)
cyclists are eejits
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/competitive-strava-cyclists-turn-uk-roads-into-death-traps/
Too old for the stress of moving
A nice 2 bed house costs over 40% of a nice 5 bed house
Competition - the nice 2 bedder is in the sights of both downsizers and the aspiring young
Having children and grandchildren to stay
VW ended up building a batch as it was easier than trying to extract themselves from the binding contracts everyone had been instructed to sign and return immediately
They only live a few miles away. It's not as if we ever stay over.
It's a very nice house, however, and ten years on they're still happy with their decision.
Is he that bad ?
Mr. Brooke, to use modern slang, Starmer is 'mid'.
The problem is that Sunak is far worse.
Sadly all gone now as they've messed around with the road and you can't be in a car going eastwards as the traffic is always static.
Of course it does, you have to pay for kitchen bathroom(s) reception room(s) which are a disproportionately large amount of a smaller property
Does it matter? As long as you pay a fair price it will hold its value
A spare bedroom is enough and will encourage them to go when no longer welcome. Or book a B&B
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-69026151
IMHO it’s (sometimes literally) shit like this that convinces me that no improvement in the economy or stopping any number of small boat crossings will help the Tories. There is a drip (geddit?) of stories every day about how basic public services are not working properly. The basics, water, postal services, courts…there’s a palpable sense of decline. I live 10 miles from the Kent coast and have never seen a migrant off a small boat but my village no longer has a bus service and we’ve had weeks without broadband in the last 12 months.
Labour lead at 27 points in this week's YouGov poll for The Times
CON 20 (+2)
LAB 47 (-1)
LIB DEM 9 (=)
REF UK 11 (-2)
GRN 8 (+1)
Fieldwork 15 - 16 May
What happened house building ? Too hard to do ?
This site is getting beyond parody.
If wealthier people are more likely to vote Tory, because they have wealth to protect from taxation, and wealthier people live longer, then it shouldn't be surprising that the older age groups tend towards voting Tory. Left-wing voters have died.
This is a well-known effect for the sex balance of the population due to women living longer than men, such that, at age 78, there are 232 thousand men in the UK and 269 thousand women, a 46:54 ratio.
But I am frequently out and about on roads. I make about 8 trips a day of various sort - on foot, in a car, by bike. With my kids and alone. And I can't remember the last time I had to worry at all about what a cyclist was doing. Whereas you have to look out for cars all the time. Cyclists have a combined bike-and-rider weight of typically around 100kg and travel at about, let's say, 15mph. Cars weigh at least a tonne and travel at about 30mph. Granted, some cyclists might in extremis go twice as fast as that, but so might some cars. Cars have at least 20 times the momentum of cyclists, and are far, far more common. And they take up more space. Citing cyclists as the ones turning cars into death traps seems a little disingenuous.
Bottom line: Build More Decent Homes In Decent Places. There's no fundamental reason why we should be short of the blooming things, except inertia.
(One thing on the family visits thing. Even though it feels sensible to have spare rooms for visting offspring, the whole thing got a lot less fraught for us once parents and I agreed that we'd stay in a Travelinn for such visits.)
For context, Bradley Wiggins averaged 33.9mph in a velodrome during a 1 hour time trial. If this embankment cyclist exists, they are perhaps superhuman.
But it's the telegraph so merely "disingenuous" is better than their usual standard.
Cows
Lightning
Mobility scooters (I think - still trying to dig through the data)
thats not going to solve anything.
Downsizing as a retiree also can bring with it some bittersweet feelings as it’s an acknowledgment that maybe the big house is too big for them now and that they are approaching twilight years.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24325765.another-dispersal-order-issued-a134-bury-st-edmunds/
I think selective survival is impacting the Leave voters more than older Remainers for example, and while that is a dormant issue the underlying value set defines attitudes to other cultural issues.
But the world record sprint over 200 m with a flying start is about 9 s. I make that 50 miles per hour. So technically possible, but not plausible. Especially compared with someone... I dunno... having the app on when they weren't cycling?
The Telegraph really is a bloody awful paper these days.
In any case, this election will be decided on people deciding they have had enough of the government and need a change. The best strategy is just not to scare people.
I shall substantially downsize when I fully retire. My folks did and its the smartest thing they ever did, while my uncle stuck with a house in the country and he and his wife are effectively housebound without taxis now.
Cars: 58 - none travelling recklessly - hard to spot any going significantly over 30 - but all of them at potentially life-endangering speeds.
Vans: 4 (ditto)
Buses: 1
Cyclists: 4 - one trying quite hard, and going around 15mph; the other three I would describe as 'pootling'.
Pedestrians 8 (including two who came to the door: a postman and a lady from Staffordshire who kindly brought me some oatcakes. And one who got on the bus, so a slight ambiguity about modes there. Where's everyone else?)
Dogs: 1
If there is deathtrappery at work, it's clear what the source is.
I think they got very lucky.
#accidentalMarillionLyric
Starmer and his team did pretty well yesterday getting those 6 immediate priorities across. They were duly, individually, listed on a couple of the news outlets that I heard, and got a lot of coverage. I am not usually good at reciting lists, but they stuck in the memory enough that can recite them now, something that I can't say I could do with his earlier equivalent "missions". Boosting economic growth, cutting NHS waiting lists, border security and fighting criminal gangs, tackling anti-social behaviour, more teachers and a publically owned energy company investing in green technology. All accompanied by a bit of spin afterwards about how other stuff not on the list will also happen, just as happened in 1997, I remember the national minimum wage being cited in that context.
By contrast, just like Doug I can't remember what on earth Sunak was on about the day before.
The problem with the furious cyclists (and their brethren the furious ebikers) is that they are using infrastructure for pedestrians (pavements) and for more traditional cyclists (the increasing number of segregated cycle lanes).
If you are in a moderately narrow, segregated cycle lane, say, cruising along at 10mph, and someone is coming towards you at 25mph that is really not an enjoyable experience. When you add in the weight of the ebikes, and the very large boxes the delivery guys add on... You are being approached by an aggressive moped rider, in reality.
Where was house building ? Has it been dropped ?
Very common to see a coalition of NIMBYism protesting to the council etc.
So that's more people Starmer doesn't want to scare.