Good morning, everyone, and thanks for the header @TSE .
For Saturday morning here are a couple of very interesting little vids.
1 - A pleasant video by a dad taking his 3 and 4 year old for a bike ride on cycles and in his trailer along the excellent-looking Stratford-upon-Avon Greenway.
!5 minutes, and an excellent - local history describing in part - relaxed commentary. The path looks to be worth exploring.
2 - A 4 minute look at Seattle's first "Dutch-style" 'protected cycle and pedestrian' road junction, by a guy riding a bright yellow Brompton who also has a drone.
It's amusing in its way - 'Dutch style' is the road designer version of "I look like (choose a film star)' on a dating profile, and it all says more about the values of the design system. Any city will never learn from other places and gets the detail wrong first time round - just like Liverpool at their recent one built in St Helens. Can't possibly learn from Manchester who have built several !
In the USA, they always treat cycles like huge motor vehicles, so this one has SUV sized kerbs that make the already narrow cycle track about 2ft narrower (need to avoid pedal strike), full unnecessary sets of traffic lights where the cycleway meets the footway, and different stages to cross each road rather than green all round.
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
Not sure he's snuck under the radar. That political astute Danny Dyer was among the first to point this out.
UK councils win power to auction off shops vacant for more than a year Landlords face hit to their rents from scheme that seeks to deal with blight of boarded-up high streets ... ... councils will be able to hold “high street rental auctions” with no reserve price for properties that have been left empty for more than a year.
Rent controls bad; forcing lower rents good is the new Conservative mantra.
This is an excellent policy. I hope Labour adopts it when they win.
There is nothing worse than an empty high street because landlords do not want to take the hit on their accounts of revealing the current real valuation of a property.
and that is actually the point here today if I go into Town I will see a number of shops that have been empty for ages because the landlord has set a rent that keeps their book valuation in place. Were they to issue a new lease at the current market rate their assets would drop say 50% and they can't take the hit.
Yup, and this is why it's an excellent policy. It forces the establishment of a new market rate on a way that is fair and commercially driven.
The town not far from me actually saw a few empty shops knocked down and turned into a car park.
There is too much retail space. Yes I know I have just been in my shop doing today's advertising video, but in general especially in towns there is too much of it, in too poor a condition, with ludicrous rents demanded from absentee landlords.
The solution? 1. CPO and open. Buy it for a song and offer it up to new businesses for a nominal rent. Better still divide it up and create an indoor bazaar. Like Stockton-on-Tees have successfully done 2. CPO and bulldoze. Tatty shops an eyesore? In the wrong place? Buy them, 3.bulldoze them. Again, Stockton are doing this brilliantly, flattening an ugly 70s centre and turning it into a riverside park.
Far too much retail space and not enough living accommodation - which suggests a possible solution ?
CPOs of property which has been empty for more than x years at a discounted rate ?
Towns have the infrastructure, so residential imaginative development ought to be possible.
Mr. Eabhal, you may be right about rent controls being 'good' politics but that just highlights the flaws of having an incompetent media and politicians who prefer nice headlines with bad policies to policies that actually make sense.
There is a gigantic gap for the Tories to take advantage of.
Go full Thatcher. Become the party of home ownership again. Appeal directly to everyone living in private rental accomodation or owning with a mortgage. Ignore the landlords.
"Right to Buy" but extend it to the the private sector? That might be too far but messaging like that would get earners on side.
Hasn't the long term effect of RTB been to transfer housing stock from councils to BTL landlords, often Boomers using them as pension income?
RTB for the private sector might at least move them into the hands of succeeding generations a bit more quickly!
It'd likely be impossible to implement, but that still doesn't detract from its utility in winding people up...
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
Not sure he's snuck under the radar. That political astute Danny Dyer was among the first to point this out.
Well somehow he’s returned as Foreign Secretary zipping around in his fucking private jet and we’re all meant to be pleased “the grown ups are in charge”
Fuck him. I loathe him. He is so desperately average in every single respect and yet he thinks he’s “really quite good at politics” - they are the worst sort. Eton churns them out like widgets. Over self confident mediocrities who fuck up everything. TWATS
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Beijing spent the past two years renovating the Ream Naval Base after Cambodia demolished the facility’s U.S.-built structures and has parked two corvette-class vessels there for the past five months.
That’s just for starters. In the next few days, the Chinese landing vessel Jinggangshan and training ship Qijiguang will visit Ream for exercises with Cambodian cadets, according to China’s Defense Ministry. Ream also has a large enough pier to accommodate aircraft carriers, giving those ships easy access to the Gulf of Thailand and key sea lanes in South China Sea.
“This is about [China] having a more persistent naval presence against Indonesia and Malaysia in the Natuna Sea and the North Borneo area,” Ret. Rear Admiral MARK MONTGOMERY, former director of U.S. Pacific Command, told NatSec Daily.
Montgomery warned that Ream “could turn into Djibouti” — a reference to how Beijing grew what it originally described as a logistics facility in the East African country of Djibouti into China’s first overseas military base on the strategic Horn of Africa...
Mr. Eabhal, you may be right about rent controls being 'good' politics but that just highlights the flaws of having an incompetent media and politicians who prefer nice headlines with bad policies to policies that actually make sense.
There is a gigantic gap for the Tories to take advantage of.
Go full Thatcher. Become the party of home ownership again. Appeal directly to everyone living in private rental accomodation or owning with a mortgage. Ignore the landlords.
"Right to Buy" but extend it to the the private sector? That might be too far but messaging like that would get earners on side.
I know the Conservatives have acquired something of a reputation as a bunch of crooks, but are you really suggesting their flagship policy should be to sell off cheap something that they don't even own?
No reason why the proceeds of the sale (less tax, of course!) wouldn't go to the current owners.
The real result of such a policy would, I'd imagine, be that landlords would simply section 21 their tenants every year so that they could never build up a sufficiently long tenancy to qualify for the discount.
You could maybe get round that by making the qualifying period portable across tenancies somehow, but that's getting so far into the realm of fantasy that it's not really worth speculating about.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Question about the "we already see from Scotland" trope. Where's the data? I looked on the ONS earlier and there was a caveat saying "don't compare this with other countries/regions of the UK, it's not the same." But that dataset was from January. So where's the recent data that's suddenly gotten people talking about it?
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Labour actually have a plan for that, in a manner which they might be able to finance, if they're brave enough to do it.
But it would require making the necessary legislation a priority in their first year. So we'll know pretty quickly if they've bottled it.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Your short-term solution is temporary housing structures, things like container parks, but they have to me managed carefully to avoid becoming slums.
Your medium-term solution is finding every piece of free land or derelict building in town centres, and putting up housing on them, also pick up a couple of fields on the outskirts and put up prefab housing there as well, with the rent including a shuttle bus into town that runs at least 20 hours per day.
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
Good morning, everyone, and thanks for the header @TSE .
For Saturday morning here are a couple of very interesting little vids.
1 - A pleasant video by a dad taking his 3 and 4 year old for a bike ride on cycles and in his trailer along the excellent-looking Stratford-upon-Avon Greenway.
!5 minutes, and an excellent - local history describing in part - relaxed commentary. The path looks to be worth exploring.
2 - A 4 minute look at Seattle's first "Dutch-style" 'protected cycle and pedestrian' road junction, by a guy riding a bright yellow Brompton who also has a drone.
It's amusing in its way - 'Dutch style' is the road designer version of "I look like (choose a film star)' on a dating profile, and it all says more about the values of the design system. Any city will never learn from other places and gets the detail wrong first time round - just like Liverpool at their recent one built in St Helens. Can't possibly learn from Manchester who have built several !
In the USA, they always treat cycles like huge motor vehicles, so this one has SUV sized kerbs that make the already narrow cycle track about 2ft narrower (need to avoid pedal strike), full unnecessary sets of traffic lights where the cycleway meets the footway, and different stages to cross each road rather than green all round.
You've posted the same link twice, the Stratford one
Thank-you. It may be of interest to you (I may have the wrong PBer), since he talks about the former railways quite attractively.
I could do that here with ex-railways which are everywhere, but there would be a lot of "B Winning Pit, A Winning Pit, Pleasley Colliery visitor centre, New Hucknall Colliery, Miners' Monument, Highest Point in Nottinghamshire, South Normanton Pit, Blackwell Colliery, Silverhill Colliery, Sutton Colliery, Bentinck Mine" - and that's about half of what's within 5 miles.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Yup, this is the solution. Good quality council and social housing rented on long leases and at reasonable rates. Labour should set aside £40-50bn over the next parliament to build half a million new council and social housing units for rent. Also change the social assistance rules so that only British residents qualify for social rent. Anyone on a work permit or other such immigration is automatically disqualified until they become residents.
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
Does there exist a photo of Cameron with a Hawaiian Pizza?
@TSE could be rescued from his obsession if a credible journalist (eg Not Isabel Oakeshott) could find one.
Mr. Eabhal, you may be right about rent controls being 'good' politics but that just highlights the flaws of having an incompetent media and politicians who prefer nice headlines with bad policies to policies that actually make sense.
There is a gigantic gap for the Tories to take advantage of.
Go full Thatcher. Become the party of home ownership again. Appeal directly to everyone living in private rental accomodation or owning with a mortgage. Ignore the landlords.
"Right to Buy" but extend it to the the private sector? That might be too far but messaging like that would get earners on side.
I know the Conservatives have acquired something of a reputation as a bunch of crooks, but are you really suggesting their flagship policy should be to sell off cheap something that they don't even own?
No reason why the proceeds of the sale (less tax, of course!) wouldn't go to the current owners.
The real result of such a policy would, I'd imagine, be that landlords would simply section 21 their tenants every year so that they could never build up a sufficiently long tenancy to qualify for the discount.
You could maybe get round that by making the qualifying period portable across tenancies somehow, but that's getting so far into the realm of fantasy that it's not really worth speculating about.
Something awkward like the landlord/directors must be registered to vote in the same Local Authority as where they are renting a flat out for more than a cumulative 12 months.
That would certainly take some of the heat out of the Edinburgh/London markets.
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Yup, this is the solution. Good quality council and social housing rented on long leases and at reasonable rates. Labour should set aside £40-50bn over the next parliament to build half a million new council and social housing units for rent. Also change the social assistance rules so that only British residents qualify for social rent. Anyone on a work permit or other such immigration is automatically disqualified until they become residents.
As long as its council houses and not council estates it might work.
A thin scattering of council houses across every village and town in the country with priority given to longstanding locals and not 'problem people'.
The reality is that council housing has become associated with what it had degraded into by the 1970s - slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Your short-term solution is temporary housing structures, things like container parks, but they have to me managed carefully to avoid becoming slums.
Your medium-term solution is finding every piece of free land or derelict building in town centres, and putting up housing on them, also pick up a couple of fields on the outskirts and put up prefab housing there as well, with the rent including a shuttle bus into town that runs at least 20 hours per day.
Container parks are great - look at how popular they are as retail spaces, there's no reason that they shouldn't be just as desirable when used as housing.
Even if some did become slums, they'd still be a better solution for people who are currently sharing a bedroom with a stranger in a shared house and aspiring to maybe one day having their own room with a lockable door in an HMO.
Under-utilised surface car parks would be a great location for this. Disused railway sidings. Single storey retail parks on the edge of city centres.
There's a limit to how far you can push it - there aren't ever going to be millions of people living in them. But if you're looking for a quick win, this would be a very good one to go for.
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
Don't we have an extradition treat with NZ? Charge her with contempt of court or similar?
Charge her with fraud - surely there is enough evidence for it to stack up
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is the more obvious charge. There's a busload of former PO employees in line for that one. Her refusal to attend the Inquiry makes her a particularly obvious and easy target.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Site Value Taxation. Just taxation on the value of the land of course, not on the building. If you make it heavy enough, all those foreigners will not remain sitting on empty property for long.
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
Don't we have an extradition treat with NZ? Charge her with contempt of court or similar?
Charge her with fraud - surely there is enough evidence for it to stack up
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is the more obvious charge. There's a busload of former PO employees in line for that one. Her refusal to attend the Inquiry makes her a particularly obvious and easy target.
My reasoning is that I don’t think perverting the course of justice is extraditable in the way fraud is.
And a dodgy fraud case to extradite her to the UK would be poetic justice - at which point the real charges can be added
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Site Value Taxation. Just taxation on the value of the land of course, not on the building. If you make it heavy enough, all those foreigners will not remain sitting on empty property for long.
Go back to the 1909 budget. I wonder what a 0.2% annual tax on the site value of all land would bring in today?
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
Don't we have an extradition treat with NZ? Charge her with contempt of court or similar?
Charge her with fraud - surely there is enough evidence for it to stack up
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is the more obvious charge. There's a busload of former PO employees in line for that one. Her refusal to attend the Inquiry makes her a particularly obvious and easy target.
My reasoning is that I don’t think perverting the course of justice is extraditable in the way fraud is.
And a dodgy fraud case to extradite her to the UK would be poetic justice - at which point the real charges can be added
Poetic justice would be to bang up every last one of them until such time as they could prove their innocence. That is, after all, what the PO did to the SPMs.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Yup, this is the solution. Good quality council and social housing rented on long leases and at reasonable rates. Labour should set aside £40-50bn over the next parliament to build half a million new council and social housing units for rent. Also change the social assistance rules so that only British residents qualify for social rent. Anyone on a work permit or other such immigration is automatically disqualified until they become residents.
As long as its council houses and not council estates it might work.
A thin scattering of council houses across every village and town in the country with priority given to longstanding locals and not 'problem people'.
The reality is that council housing has become associated with what it had degraded into by the 1970s - slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
Having grown up in an estate I agree with that, housing estates should be mixed use and not just become a dumping ground for people that should be in prison but we've not got the space in the prison system to deal with it.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Yup, this is the solution. Good quality council and social housing rented on long leases and at reasonable rates. Labour should set aside £40-50bn over the next parliament to build half a million new council and social housing units for rent. Also change the social assistance rules so that only British residents qualify for social rent. Anyone on a work permit or other such immigration is automatically disqualified until they become residents.
As long as its council houses and not council estates it might work.
A thin scattering of council houses across every village and town in the country with priority given to longstanding locals and not 'problem people'.
The reality is that council housing has become associated with what it had degraded into by the 1970s - slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
Having grown up in an estate I agree with that, housing estates should be mixed use and not just become a dumping ground for people that should be in prison but we've not got the space in the prison system to deal with it.
It would reduce the nimby opposition if respectable locals were given priority instead of 'undesirables' or newly arrived immigrants.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
Yup, this is the solution. Good quality council and social housing rented on long leases and at reasonable rates. Labour should set aside £40-50bn over the next parliament to build half a million new council and social housing units for rent. Also change the social assistance rules so that only British residents qualify for social rent. Anyone on a work permit or other such immigration is automatically disqualified until they become residents.
As long as its council houses and not council estates it might work.
A thin scattering of council houses across every village and town in the country with priority given to longstanding locals and not 'problem people'.
The reality is that council housing has become associated with what it had degraded into by the 1970s - slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
Having grown up in an estate I agree with that, housing estates should be mixed use and not just become a dumping ground for people that should be in prison but we've not got the space in the prison system to deal with it.
It would reduce the nimby opposition if respectable locals were given priority instead of 'undesirables' or newly arrived immigrants.
The parish council committee on respectable locals. Boomer heaven.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
The Coalition Government came to an end in 2015.
Try voting Lib Dem next time.
Slight problem is that Lib Dems are local populism central.
If they need to undermine any new housing to win 3 more votes, that is exactly what they will do. See the Blue Wall, or almost anywhere else.
On one of mine Zadrozny, whilst still a Lib Dem, put out 300 leaflets 48 hours before a Council Planning Committee meeting.
Housing - it's complicated and nuanced and it's not just about building lots of new houses.
I understand the political driver from the Conservative side to create a new generation of home owners but there's nothing wrong with a strong, well-regulated private and public rental sector providing accommodation for those who do not want or cannot afford to own their own home.
There's nothing wrong with renting - Conservatives don't like it because home owners become Tory voters and renters don't and landlords (especially those with bigger portfolios) tend to be Conservative sympathisers. Those who rent are entitled to suitable accommodation and cowboy landlords (who cut costs to enahnce their own profit) need to be controlled.
Beyond that, there's the whole issue of what do you build, where do you build it and how does that impact on pre-existing communities and simply calling people "NIMBYs" for opposing such developments is crass and simplistic. Most people aren't opposed to ALL development but very often will be opposed to the profit-driven overdense developments put forward by developers which are all too often driven by the desire to make money rather than any desire to create sustainable communities.
Conservatives seem at times desperate not to want to conserve - it's perfectly possible to create appropriate developments which can enhance existing communities and this is where the dreaded "P" word comes into it.
There's a lot which could be done to take the profit motive out of land speculation - Land Value Taxation, anyone? In addition, there's the uncomfortable reality there isn't the capacity, thanks to under employment, to build at the capacity we need - there are shortages of both materials and key trades which restrict what can happen and when on any construction project.
There's the small matter of the existing infrastructure - water, sewage, power, transport, health, education, roads to name but seven. Unplanned unregulated development compromises one or more of these and brings additional costs to local residents, councils, utility companies and transport providers to name but four.
That's why we have a Planning process - not to stop development entirely but to ensure new development works for both the local community and the local infrastructure.
How about a council house guarantee for young people (18-25) in the same catchment/LA as they went to secondary school? Some reasonable fixed price, may not be rented out.
Would stem the brain drain to the cities and encourage graduates back after uni.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Your short-term solution is temporary housing structures, things like container parks, but they have to me managed carefully to avoid becoming slums.
Your medium-term solution is finding every piece of free land or derelict building in town centres, and putting up housing on them, also pick up a couple of fields on the outskirts and put up prefab housing there as well, with the rent including a shuttle bus into town that runs at least 20 hours per day.
Such small plots will be of no interest to the big developers, so use it as an opportunity to encourage small builders to develop the plots, with financial incentives if necessary.
Every government promises to build more houses but the promised number of houses never seems to be built. Why is this.
Meanwhile there are (tens? hundreds? of) thousands of private new developments everywhere you look in the country. We have an affordability problem not a housing problem.
How about a council house guarantee for young people (18-25) in the same catchment/LA as they went to secondary school? Some reasonable fixed price, may not be rented out.
Would stem the brain drain to the cities and encourage graduates back after uni.
Interesting idea - the problem is people who can go to the money. It's always been the way - the solution is to bring the money to the areas which don't have it which requires both substantial public and private investment which is rarely forthcoming.
That's another aspect of new housing policy - investment in an area to create jobs should run hand-in-hand with housing investment to build homes for the workers. Whether it's a "company" town as used to be the case or simply an area where both business and residential construction and development is significantly advantaged via tax breaks or other mechanisms I don't know.
Mr. Eabhal, you may be right about rent controls being 'good' politics but that just highlights the flaws of having an incompetent media and politicians who prefer nice headlines with bad policies to policies that actually make sense.
There is a gigantic gap for the Tories to take advantage of.
Go full Thatcher. Become the party of home ownership again. Appeal directly to everyone living in private rental accomodation or owning with a mortgage. Ignore the landlords.
"Right to Buy" but extend it to the the private sector? That might be too far but messaging like that would get earners on side.
I know the Conservatives have acquired something of a reputation as a bunch of crooks, but are you really suggesting their flagship policy should be to sell off cheap something that they don't even own?
No reason why the proceeds of the sale (less tax, of course!) wouldn't go to the current owners.
The real result of such a policy would, I'd imagine, be that landlords would simply section 21 their tenants every year so that they could never build up a sufficiently long tenancy to qualify for the discount.
You could maybe get round that by making the qualifying period portable across tenancies somehow, but that's getting so far into the realm of fantasy that it's not really worth speculating about.
Something awkward like the landlord/directors must be registered to vote in the same Local Authority as where they are renting a flat out for more than a cumulative 12 months.
That would certainly take some of the heat out of the Edinburgh/London markets.
Unfortunately, you'd screw people who needed to rent out their property because of work or family/caring obligations. Maybe you could restrict it only to those earning more than a certain threshold?
I do wonder, though, what proportion of landlords are in this category?
Mind you, I saw an article in the Guardian that started with something like 'I bought flats to rent to each of my two children, but now that they're old enough to have each bought their own house I have become an accidental landlord'. Er, no, you're a very deliberate landlord.
I'd guess that there are plenty of others in a similar situation who would be aggrieved to find that they were caught by any new restrictions.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
The Coalition Government came to an end in 2015.
Try voting Lib Dem next time.
None of the seats I've ever voted in have changed hands at the election where I voted there, and I never voted for the incumbent either.
The Tories have made plenty of garden city related promises since 2015, so still reasonable to expect something might have been done.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
The bolded bit is the key to getting it done under current fiscal constraints. JFDI.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Site Value Taxation. Just taxation on the value of the land of course, not on the building. If you make it heavy enough, all those foreigners will not remain sitting on empty property for long.
This would not do a lot to cheer up the farmers who choose to farm good agricultural land which could otherwise be the site of 6 bedroom executive homes. And those, like the RSPB, who waste their valuable land on preserving woodpeckers, red squirrels and marsh tits.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
Housing - it's complicated and nuanced and it's not just about building lots of new houses.
I understand the political driver from the Conservative side to create a new generation of home owners but there's nothing wrong with a strong, well-regulated private and public rental sector providing accommodation for those who do not want or cannot afford to own their own home.
There's nothing wrong with renting - Conservatives don't like it because home owners become Tory voters and renters don't and landlords (especially those with bigger portfolios) tend to be Conservative sympathisers. Those who rent are entitled to suitable accommodation and cowboy landlords (who cut costs to enahnce their own profit) need to be controlled.
Beyond that, there's the whole issue of what do you build, where do you build it and how does that impact on pre-existing communities and simply calling people "NIMBYs" for opposing such developments is crass and simplistic. Most people aren't opposed to ALL development but very often will be opposed to the profit-driven overdense developments put forward by developers which are all too often driven by the desire to make money rather than any desire to create sustainable communities.
Conservatives seem at times desperate not to want to conserve - it's perfectly possible to create appropriate developments which can enhance existing communities and this is where the dreaded "P" word comes into it.
There's a lot which could be done to take the profit motive out of land speculation - Land Value Taxation, anyone? In addition, there's the uncomfortable reality there isn't the capacity, thanks to under employment, to build at the capacity we need - there are shortages of both materials and key trades which restrict what can happen and when on any construction project.
There's the small matter of the existing infrastructure - water, sewage, power, transport, health, education, roads to name but seven. Unplanned unregulated development compromises one or more of these and brings additional costs to local residents, councils, utility companies and transport providers to name but four.
That's why we have a Planning process - not to stop development entirely but to ensure new development works for both the local community and the local infrastructure.
That would be the planning process that approved 1400 houses this week locally even though the waterboard has said it doesn't have the capacity...
A little bizarre from Nottinghamshire Police - assault with Electric Wheelchair (no Notts Constabulary, it's not a mobility scooter), help us catch the perp.
A woman on a cycle went past a man in an electric wheelchair on a good quality shared cycling / walking path by the Tramway, in company with a friend. Cue verbal abuse of woman. Wheelchair driven at women pinning her against a fence, causing minor injury.
'What are you doing?'. Wheelchair driven at bike breaking wheel. Chap leaves.
Video submitted to police, so whoever needs to be charged can be charged.
1 - Policing needed to address public highways / permissive paths that are not roads. Intelligence-lead by PCSOs on e-cycles?
2 - In these times of still-slashed resources, the importance of running cameras, no matter what the transport mode. Police may need to be handed minor convictions on a plate.
Fortunately we have a new Police and Crime Commissioner, so innovation may happen.
I'm not normally a Monbiot fan, but I think he might have a point here ? Either way, the situation is untenable. Another thing for the next government's intray.
How can a child in care cost £281,000 a year? Ask the wealth funds that have councils over a barrel
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/18/child-care-cost-year-wealth-funds-councils-britain-residential ..The system is in crisis, but crisis is lucrative. The independent review of children’s social care, commissioned by the government after repeated requests from local authorities and published in 2022, makes the crucial point that private providers can “refuse to engage” with attempts to rationalise the system, as they have no incentive to see it reformed. Perpetual chaos means they have councils over a barrel. Systemic dysfunction forces local authorities to make expensive last-minute “spot purchases” of residential care, rather than, for example, building regional care cooperatives, which would forecast and absorb demand, investing in public or not-for-profit provision and enabling children to stay close to home. For this and many other reasons, the review concluded that “providing care for children should not be based on profit”. But the government won’t listen...
Steady as she goes. Not much impact from locals or other events.
The Refuk rise certainly appears to have ended for now - not much sign of any of their share going back to the Tories, though.
We're 6-8 months away from the end of the parliament, so you'd normally expect Lab-Con swingback to be underway by this point. Perhaps significant that we're not seeing any?
I once saw a Lynx pilot smoke 100 cigarettes simultaneously at a Taranto Night dinner by putting an elastic band around them and improvising a funnel from a plastic bottle. What courage. Makes you proud and reminds you of the powerful and simple meaning of what it is to serve.
He's now a training captain at [CENSORED] and that 100 fags was by no means the stupidest thing I ever saw him do by a long way.
I'm not normally a Monbiot fan, but I think he might have a point here ? Either way, the situation is untenable. Another thing for the next government's intray.
How can a child in care cost £281,000 a year? Ask the wealth funds that have councils over a barrel
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/18/child-care-cost-year-wealth-funds-councils-britain-residential ..The system is in crisis, but crisis is lucrative. The independent review of children’s social care, commissioned by the government after repeated requests from local authorities and published in 2022, makes the crucial point that private providers can “refuse to engage” with attempts to rationalise the system, as they have no incentive to see it reformed. Perpetual chaos means they have councils over a barrel. Systemic dysfunction forces local authorities to make expensive last-minute “spot purchases” of residential care, rather than, for example, building regional care cooperatives, which would forecast and absorb demand, investing in public or not-for-profit provision and enabling children to stay close to home. For this and many other reasons, the review concluded that “providing care for children should not be based on profit”. But the government won’t listen...
How about a council house guarantee for young people (18-25) in the same catchment/LA as they went to secondary school? Some reasonable fixed price, may not be rented out.
Would stem the brain drain to the cities and encourage graduates back after uni.
Interesting idea - the problem is people who can go to the money. It's always been the way - the solution is to bring the money to the areas which don't have it which requires both substantial public and private investment which is rarely forthcoming.
That's another aspect of new housing policy - investment in an area to create jobs should run hand-in-hand with housing investment to build homes for the workers. Whether it's a "company" town as used to be the case or simply an area where both business and residential construction and development is significantly advantaged via tax breaks or other mechanisms I don't know.
The entire NIMBY thing is far more fuzzy than many like to think.
The current system makes it look like we actually want NIMBYs and NIMBYism. I mean, if not, why do we go out of our way to create more?
There's an irreducible core of NIMBYs and even BANANAs. There's a similarly irreducible core of Build Build Build.
The ones in the middle range from tending NIMBY to tending Buildy. I've seen them heading NIMBY-wards like electrons when a current is applied, solely due to the way big developers seem to go "Fuck off!" to the locals, to the promised plans as to where to build and where not, and especially to the promised and even committed infrastructure. I've also seen them heading Buildy-wards when infrastructure is promised and they get buy-in to a Neighbourhood Plan which actually gets followed (I've previously given the example of my own village voting overwhelmingly for a Neighbourhood Plan which had been asked to provide a 20% increase in housing and where they voted for a 30% increase; partly because they felt some ownership of the process and partly due to the promised infrastructure.
And then we get countless examples of the infrastructure not being provided and developers merrily ignoring the Neighbourhood Plan and getting away with it.
But can't the Local Authority take enforcement action?
Well, are you a sole resident or very small developer? If so, yay, they can. If not, tough shit. Iteration on iteration of layered and interwoven legislation coupled with "We've got the QCs and you've got the lawyers who'll work for pin money, and any doubt or quibbles mean you get a big fuck off and a bill for costs, ha ha ha ha," means the big developers can often, in effect, seem to do whatever they want.
Surgeries not being built. Schools not being provided. Sewerage systems not joined up even years after houses are built and occupied. Footpath levels being raised to overlook previously private windows against the plans.
Local Authorities approving more development outside those areas because they have no choice in legislation. It's amazing how many people - politically aware people with real nous - seem to think LAs have carte blanche on approvals and rejections. They don't. Get it wrong and you get overruled and costs awarded against you.
This acts like a huge electric current to any in the middle (and even strips of some of the build-build-build electrode) and we accumulate NIMBYism more and more.
But giving councils actual power to enforce the plans and commitments? Blocking dodgy developers from going forwards? Enforcing Neighbourhood Plans? That's crazy talk, that is.
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
I'm not normally a Monbiot fan, but I think he might have a point here ? Either way, the situation is untenable. Another thing for the next government's intray.
How can a child in care cost £281,000 a year? Ask the wealth funds that have councils over a barrel
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/18/child-care-cost-year-wealth-funds-councils-britain-residential ..The system is in crisis, but crisis is lucrative. The independent review of children’s social care, commissioned by the government after repeated requests from local authorities and published in 2022, makes the crucial point that private providers can “refuse to engage” with attempts to rationalise the system, as they have no incentive to see it reformed. Perpetual chaos means they have councils over a barrel. Systemic dysfunction forces local authorities to make expensive last-minute “spot purchases” of residential care, rather than, for example, building regional care cooperatives, which would forecast and absorb demand, investing in public or not-for-profit provision and enabling children to stay close to home. For this and many other reasons, the review concluded that “providing care for children should not be based on profit”. But the government won’t listen...
What happens when the money runs out?
This is what's happening when the money runs out. They don't have the budget to invest in provision, so end up having to spend much more on these emergency placements.
I'm not normally a Monbiot fan, but I think he might have a point here ? Either way, the situation is untenable. Another thing for the next government's intray.
How can a child in care cost £281,000 a year? Ask the wealth funds that have councils over a barrel
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/18/child-care-cost-year-wealth-funds-councils-britain-residential ..The system is in crisis, but crisis is lucrative. The independent review of children’s social care, commissioned by the government after repeated requests from local authorities and published in 2022, makes the crucial point that private providers can “refuse to engage” with attempts to rationalise the system, as they have no incentive to see it reformed. Perpetual chaos means they have councils over a barrel. Systemic dysfunction forces local authorities to make expensive last-minute “spot purchases” of residential care, rather than, for example, building regional care cooperatives, which would forecast and absorb demand, investing in public or not-for-profit provision and enabling children to stay close to home. For this and many other reasons, the review concluded that “providing care for children should not be based on profit”. But the government won’t listen...
What happens when the money runs out?
First the councils cut everything that isn't a statutory requirement to pay for the expensive things they are required to deliver.
Then they go bust.
As we're seeing happen.
(It's the same issue as housebuilding at one level. Businesses don't exist to build houses or care for damaged children, they exist to make a profit. Usually, doing something well at a fair price is the reliable way to make a profit, but not always. If those two things diverge, we have a problem.)
Mr. Leon, Taras, as it was then known, was the birthplace of Antigenes, captain of the Silver Shields whom Antigonus Monopthalmus burnt alive.
Also, as Tarentum, its citadel remained in Roman hands when Hannibal took the city.
No idea what it's like now, though...
It’s absolutely lovely - mind you I’ve only been here half an hour but still. I’m quick on the uptake in this game
Apparently it has a really bad reputation for being dodgy and dirty and it is surrounded by steelworks and naval bases - waves at @Dura_Ace - but it has an incredible location - two interlinked islands - one medieval and ancient - and one a beautiful grid of neo classical boulevards - and because of that reputation - almost no tourists. Yay
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
Osborne cautioned Cameron that the Brexit vote would be a dangerous error for Cameron.
Save for his EURef hubris, Cameron was one of our better post war PMs.
"Post Office lawyer who oversaw Alan Bates case refusing to co-operate with inquiry It is understood that Jane MacLeod is living in New Zealand and the inquiry cannot compel her to give evidence while she is abroad"
Who's going to get on a 24 hour flight to be made to look like a c**t on national television if they don't have to? Nobody.
The solution to that, is to find a way to compel them to either turn up or dial in. Can she be formally held in contempt and a warrant issued for her arrest, that could be forwarded to the NZ consulate, for example, that would render her unable to leave NZ until she co-operates?
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
The Coalition Government came to an end in 2015.
Try voting Lib Dem next time.
Lib Dems, the NIMBYiest of the NIMBYs.
Where developments ought to be opposed, most certainly. And where not, not.
Julian Jessop - one of Truss's advisors iirc - on the economics of the GE:
"But put it all together and it’s an encouraging picture: Britain’s economy is on the verge of a very good year. The sort of year, in fact, that might make voters think twice about gambling on a high-tax, high-spend Labour government.
It’s exactly what Rishi needs before the election. Sir Keir will have a hard job persuading voters things can only get better if they’re already improving rapidly."
Mr. Eabhal, you may be right about rent controls being 'good' politics but that just highlights the flaws of having an incompetent media and politicians who prefer nice headlines with bad policies to policies that actually make sense.
There is a gigantic gap for the Tories to take advantage of.
Go full Thatcher. Become the party of home ownership again. Appeal directly to everyone living in private rental accomodation or owning with a mortgage. Ignore the landlords.
"Right to Buy" but extend it to the the private sector? That might be too far but messaging like that would get earners on side.
Ownership is way less important than reliable and affordable accommodation. It's frustrating that nearly fifty years after the Right to Buy policy started politicians still haven't fully grasped that point.
To encourage best practice affordable rents, tax properties the owners don't live in very high but discount that tax when the property is rented on standard long term leases.
Julian Jessop - one of Truss's advisors iirc - on the economics of the GE:
"But put it all together and it’s an encouraging picture: Britain’s economy is on the verge of a very good year. The sort of year, in fact, that might make voters think twice about gambling on a high-tax, high-spend Labour government.
It’s exactly what Rishi needs before the election. Sir Keir will have a hard job persuading voters things can only get better if they’re already improving rapidly."
Well it didn't make much differnce in 1997. In fact the glowing economy at the time possibly encouraged voters to think it was worth letting Labour/Blair have a go at distributing the fruits of the hard fought recovery...
Julian Jessop - one of Truss's advisors iirc - on the economics of the GE:
"But put it all together and it’s an encouraging picture: Britain’s economy is on the verge of a very good year. The sort of year, in fact, that might make voters think twice about gambling on a high-tax, high-spend Labour government.
It’s exactly what Rishi needs before the election. Sir Keir will have a hard job persuading voters things can only get better if they’re already improving rapidly."
More ramping from the Torygraph. The only evidence so far is Conservative Ministers and Conservative shills claiming boomtime. The slightly improving economic picture so far is barely noteable.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Julian Jessop - one of Truss's advisors iirc - on the economics of the GE:
"But put it all together and it’s an encouraging picture: Britain’s economy is on the verge of a very good year. The sort of year, in fact, that might make voters think twice about gambling on a high-tax, high-spend Labour government.
It’s exactly what Rishi needs before the election. Sir Keir will have a hard job persuading voters things can only get better if they’re already improving rapidly."
More ramping from the Torygraph. The only evidence so far is Conservative Ministers and Conservative shills claiming boomtime. The slightly improving economic picture so far is barely noteable.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Small but noisy Palestine protest in Aberdeen outside Marischal College. They’re against terrorism and genocide but chant “Yemen Yemen make us proud” by being terrorists.
I don’t get the mentality. You are either against terrorism or you are in favour of it. They say Israel is terrorist - bad - but like Yemeni terrorism - good.
Anyone got any crayons so I can explain it in a way they will understand?
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 2h Every MP pushing for a reduced university sector should be asked if they would like to close the one nearest their constituency.
Sandpit, can I ask why you are rooting for Trump when he is going to hang Ukraine out to dry?
I’m really not rooting for Trump, simply trying to provide an element of balance to an otherwise very one-sided betting forum.
That said, my longstanding prediction for how Ukraine would be handled by Republicans was shown to be correct only a couple of weeks ago, couching “aid for Ukraine” as spending taking place primarily inside the US, and supporting millions of American jobs in hundreds of Republican-held districts and States.
There’s probably 10% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats who don’t like the idea of helping Ukraine defend itself, but the 80% of pragmatists in the middle are all for it, especially if the spending goes to some of the biggest donors to both parties, and there’s no American boots on the ground to come home in flag-draped coffins.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
Sandpit, can I ask why you are rooting for Trump when he is going to hang Ukraine out to dry?
I don't think it makes much difference at this point. Even if the embalmed remains of JRB beats DJT, and somehow civil war does not accrue therefrom, they aren't going to get another $60bn through Congress any time soon.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
TBF the Scots hardly ever stopped (though it was minimal in the Labour-LD administration). I've read an analysis long ago which reckoned it was a decent effort but really should have been doubled to make an impact. But even then it was so against the UK Zeitgeist and perhaps still is, unless the latter really is changing.
- Build a load of new social homes. Aim for 150,000 per year. - Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values - Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on - Build ten new garden cities
I'm sure I'd heard promises from politicians about new garden cities. I did a little Google, and found lots of different references, lots of different schemes using the name. I couldn't make any sense of it.
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
The Coalition Government came to an end in 2015.
Try voting Lib Dem next time.
Lib Dems, the NIMBYiest of the NIMBYs.
Where developments ought to be opposed, most certainly. And where not, not.
What's your problem with that?
When people talk rubbish about being all in favour of backing the ‘right’ developments, but in practice vehemently oppose every single specific development proposal.
Julian Jessop - one of Truss's advisors iirc - on the economics of the GE:
"But put it all together and it’s an encouraging picture: Britain’s economy is on the verge of a very good year. The sort of year, in fact, that might make voters think twice about gambling on a high-tax, high-spend Labour government.
It’s exactly what Rishi needs before the election. Sir Keir will have a hard job persuading voters things can only get better if they’re already improving rapidly."
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
The fascinating thing about the little fortlet at Pittsburgh is that it is also a foundation episode - if somewhat parochially defined - when there was **** all but trees and bears all around, and Native American settlements.
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
It strikes me that the vast majority of PBers, who I assume are owner occupiers, are quick to denigrate any form of rent control, but also don't have any solutions to the problems faced by (young, in particular) renters. Down here on the south coast average private-sector rents are around 56% of take-home pay, rising to over 60% when bills are included. On average pay, this means life is a struggle. And, of course, many rental properties at the lower end are pretty abysmal and/or pokey.
The obvious solution is more house-building, but this a) may not happen, and b) even if it does, will take many years to have an impact. The second solution is to move somewhere cheaper. But for all sorts of reasons - family, friends, work - many people can't, or don't want to, uproot. And of course, the third solution is to buy. But for most young renters down here, you're having a laugh.
So, I'd be genuinely interested if anybody has any practical solutions to the short-term and mid-term rental crisis.
Council housing. Build lots more council housing.
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
TBF the Scots hardly ever stopped (though it was minimal in the Labour-LD administration). I've read an analysis long ago which reckoned it was a decent effort but really should have been doubled to make an impact. But even then it was so against the UK Zeitgeist and perhaps still is, unless the latter really is changing.
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
Osborne cautioned Cameron that the Brexit vote would be a dangerous error for Cameron.
Save for his EURef hubris, Cameron was one of our better post war PMs.
No, he really wasn't. David Cameron's first government gave us botched UC and NHS reforms, killed the recovery inherited from Labour, dabbled unwisely in the Middle East, and almost lost Scotland, and started to gerrymander the electoral system. Cameron might have looked the part, but that is as far as it went.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
The fascinating thing about the little fortlet at Pittsburgh is that it is also a foundation episode - if somewhat parochially defined - when there was **** all but trees and bears all around, and Native American settlements.
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
It was also a destination in the rather pedestrian Ravensburger board game "Journey Through Europe". So 10 year old Cookie knew where it was. Though the makers of the game found Taranto insufficiently interesting to include any details about it.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
The fascinating thing about the little fortlet at Pittsburgh is that it is also a foundation episode - if somewhat parochially defined - when there was **** all but trees and bears all around, and Native American settlements.
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
Yeah yeah yeah. But I’m here now - the Jay Rayner of Place - so I’m gonna put this neglected town on the map. I may even find some noom
Honestly the way the guidebooks describe it the entire city of covered in filth and you’re lucky to get out of the centro storico alive after 6pm
In reality - so far - it’s like a really appealing Italian version of Valencia but with more history and Italian charm. AND ALMOST NO TOURISTS
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Not sure if I like the idea of being rimmed by modern industry, but better than being reamed which is the far more common experience.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
The fascinating thing about the little fortlet at Pittsburgh is that it is also a foundation episode - if somewhat parochially defined - when there was **** all but trees and bears all around, and Native American settlements.
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
I've seen things you people wouldn’t believe. The gunroom piano on fire going over the stern of a carrier. I've watched a Sub Lieutenant stick a condom up his nose and pull it out of his mouth. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Just for interest. I read an appraisal of a site in outer London in an up and coming area, next to a railway station, town centre, supermarket and within 5 minutes of schools etc. Houses in the area cost up to the £1 million mark. The flats near the site, built 10 years ago, sell for £300 - £500k. The development involves construction of new flats and commercial space; the development is pretty standard and typical of such developments.
The cost of building out the development is £20 million. The sale value is £32.5 million. This is before affordable housing, planning demands come in to play, and before professional fees and developer profit are taken out. It effectively gives the existing land a nil value.
10 years ago the cost of building out the development would be half what it is now because of cheaper material/labour costs, and less regulation (second staircases etc).
This is the new reality of building on 'brownfield' land. If it won't work in this location the whole country must be in deep trouble.
It occurs to me that the Tory who SHOULD be hated, far more than Sunak, far more than Boris or Truss, possibly more than TMay, is David Cameron
All of the Tory problems - many of Britain’s problems - stem from his total lack of imagination, his sneering narcissism, and his dismal mediocrity when it comes to policy. He and Osborne failed to fix Britain after the GFC. Look at the graphs
They then added to that with a botched Brexit referendum which grotesquely divided the country, a referendum Cameron lost because he overestimated his ability to win concessions from the EU (precisely because Cameron told them he’d never leave the EU and he was bound to win the vote - where was their motivation to offer concessions??). A vote which was certain to throw us into chaos because Cameron refused to plan for a LEAVE victory
And as soon as he lost Cameron resigned, leaving party and nation in turmoil when a nobler and abler man would have stayed on to calm the waters
Its him. Its Cameron. Somehow he has snuck under the radar but its him and Osborne who should shoulder so much of the blame for our present ills, in so many aspects
David Cameron's EU negotiations were even worse than you say. For one thing, sfaict, Cameron was not asking for anything in particular, just concessions in general with which he could assuage his Eurosceptic colleagues. Secondly, Cameron was not even negotiating with the right people. He believed Faragiste propaganda that the EU was a German racket so attempted to negotiate directly with Angela Merkel rather than the EU, and rather than working through the European Parliament where Britain was now isolated because Cameron had withdrawn Tory MEPs from the EPP bloc, against the advice of mainstream Eurosceptics like William Hague.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
The fascinating thing about the little fortlet at Pittsburgh is that it is also a foundation episode - if somewhat parochially defined - when there was **** all but trees and bears all around, and Native American settlements.
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
Yeah yeah yeah. But I’m here now - the Jay Rayner of Place - so I’m gonna put this neglected town on the map. I may even find some noom
Honestly the way the guidebooks describe it the entire city of covered in filth and you’re lucky to get out of the centro storico alive after 6pm
In reality - so far - it’s like a really appealing Italian version of Valencia but with more history and Italian charm. AND ALMOST NO TOURISTS
Seriously, though, it sounds interesting. Including the monument to the battle - Monument to the Sailor - you might want to check that out.
I once saw a Lynx pilot smoke 100 cigarettes simultaneously at a Taranto Night dinner by putting an elastic band around them and improvising a funnel from a plastic bottle. What courage. Makes you proud and reminds you of the powerful and simple meaning of what it is to serve.
He's now a training captain at [CENSORED] and that 100 fags was by no means the stupidest thing I ever saw him do by a long way.
At those doses, nicotine can be hallucinogenic: see the religious practices of Umbanda and the like.
Sandpit, can I ask why you are rooting for Trump when he is going to hang Ukraine out to dry?
I’m really not rooting for Trump, simply trying to provide an element of balance to an otherwise very one-sided betting forum.
That said, my longstanding prediction for how Ukraine would be handled by Republicans was shown to be correct only a couple of weeks ago, couching “aid for Ukraine” as spending taking place primarily inside the US, and supporting millions of American jobs in hundreds of Republican-held districts and States.
There’s probably 10% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats who don’t like the idea of helping Ukraine defend itself, but the 80% of pragmatists in the middle are all for it, especially if the spending goes to some of the biggest donors to both parties, and there’s no American boots on the ground to come home in flag-draped coffins.
I believe you underestimate Trump's Russian obligations.
' [...] the researcher recalls the “shock” he felt at opening the memory cards of the cameras and realising the monotony of having to look at more than 700,000 images.
He opened the first image in December 2021 and finished in October the following year.
“After [I’d] done the first SD card, and there’s 350,000 on that, I knew what was coming. I was doing it anywhere and everywhere. Mostly at my desk, but sometimes on planes, at airports and on holiday. I had to get this done.
“What kept me going was the thought that the next burst of images could have something interesting on it. I was really hoping to see a spotted quoll.”
Sandpit, can I ask why you are rooting for Trump when he is going to hang Ukraine out to dry?
I’m really not rooting for Trump, simply trying to provide an element of balance to an otherwise very one-sided betting forum.
That said, my longstanding prediction for how Ukraine would be handled by Republicans was shown to be correct only a couple of weeks ago, couching “aid for Ukraine” as spending taking place primarily inside the US, and supporting millions of American jobs in hundreds of Republican-held districts and States.
There’s probably 10% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats who don’t like the idea of helping Ukraine defend itself, but the 80% of pragmatists in the middle are all for it, especially if the spending goes to some of the biggest donors to both parties, and there’s no American boots on the ground to come home in flag-draped coffins.
Trump seems to be saying he is going to end the war, not that he is going to stop funding Ukraine. My best guess is that he will do a 'deal' that maybe isn't that wise, and the conflict will be frozen for a while. I don't think this is a terrible fate, if it came to pass.
Sandpit, can I ask why you are rooting for Trump when he is going to hang Ukraine out to dry?
I’m really not rooting for Trump, simply trying to provide an element of balance to an otherwise very one-sided betting forum.
That said, my longstanding prediction for how Ukraine would be handled by Republicans was shown to be correct only a couple of weeks ago, couching “aid for Ukraine” as spending taking place primarily inside the US, and supporting millions of American jobs in hundreds of Republican-held districts and States.
There’s probably 10% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats who don’t like the idea of helping Ukraine defend itself, but the 80% of pragmatists in the middle are all for it, especially if the spending goes to some of the biggest donors to both parties, and there’s no American boots on the ground to come home in flag-draped coffins.
The many-month delay in aid to Ukraine has not made one jot of difference to the amount that will be spent in the USA, and has cost thousands of Ukrainian lives, both military and civilian.
As I've said passim: you can either support Ukraine or support Trump. Your position is untenable IMO.
I wish we could do unblurred photos - I could show you the splendours of Taranto. I believe I’ve made the ultimate discovery. A wonderful Mediterranean city - indeed Italian! - barely touched by tourism
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
Pittsburgh has its moments. The little fort at the junction of the huge rivers, and the original Diplodocus in the museum.
Was Pittsburgh founded by THE SPARTANS?
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
The fascinating thing about the little fortlet at Pittsburgh is that it is also a foundation episode - if somewhat parochially defined - when there was **** all but trees and bears all around, and Native American settlements.
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
Yeah yeah yeah. But I’m here now - the Jay Rayner of Place - so I’m gonna put this neglected town on the map. I may even find some noom
Honestly the way the guidebooks describe it the entire city of covered in filth and you’re lucky to get out of the centro storico alive after 6pm
In reality - so far - it’s like a really appealing Italian version of Valencia but with more history and Italian charm. AND ALMOST NO TOURISTS
Seriously, though, it sounds interesting. Including the monument to the battle - Monument to the Sailor - you might want to check that out.
Also a really fine archaeological museum. Appaz. I’m going in now…
Comments
That political astute Danny Dyer was among the first to point this out.
CPOs of property which has been empty for more than x years at a discounted rate ?
Towns have the infrastructure, so residential imaginative development ought to be possible.
It'd likely be impossible to implement, but that still doesn't detract from its utility in winding people up...
Fuck him. I loathe him. He is so desperately average in every single respect and yet he thinks he’s “really quite good at politics” - they are the worst sort. Eton churns them out like widgets. Over self confident mediocrities who fuck up everything. TWATS
We already see from Scotland that rent controls don't work. They are not the anwer to the problem. The answer is to build more housing on a not for profit basis - Council houses.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2024/05/17/chinas-big-moves-in-the-indo-pacific-00158488
China is expanding operations at a naval base in southern Cambodia so much that it could be on the road to becoming Beijing’s first permanent foreign-based military outpost in the Indo-Pacific, former officials tell us. That’s despite plenty of warnings from the Biden administration to ease off.
Beijing spent the past two years renovating the Ream Naval Base after Cambodia demolished the facility’s U.S.-built structures and has parked two corvette-class vessels there for the past five months.
That’s just for starters. In the next few days, the Chinese landing vessel Jinggangshan and training ship Qijiguang will visit Ream for exercises with Cambodian cadets, according to China’s Defense Ministry. Ream also has a large enough pier to accommodate aircraft carriers, giving those ships easy access to the Gulf of Thailand and key sea lanes in South China Sea.
“This is about [China] having a more persistent naval presence against Indonesia and Malaysia in the Natuna Sea and the North Borneo area,” Ret. Rear Admiral MARK MONTGOMERY, former director of U.S. Pacific Command, told NatSec Daily.
Montgomery warned that Ream “could turn into Djibouti” — a reference to how Beijing grew what it originally described as a logistics facility in the East African country of Djibouti into China’s first overseas military base on the strategic Horn of Africa...
The real result of such a policy would, I'd imagine, be that landlords would simply section 21 their tenants every year so that they could never build up a sufficiently long tenancy to qualify for the discount.
You could maybe get round that by making the qualifying period portable across tenancies somehow, but that's getting so far into the realm of fantasy that it's not really worth speculating about.
But it would require making the necessary legislation a priority in their first year. So we'll know pretty quickly if they've bottled it.
Your medium-term solution is finding every piece of free land or derelict building in town centres, and putting up housing on them, also pick up a couple of fields on the outskirts and put up prefab housing there as well, with the rent including a shuttle bus into town that runs at least 20 hours per day.
I could do that here with ex-railways which are everywhere, but there would be a lot of "B Winning Pit, A Winning Pit, Pleasley Colliery visitor centre, New Hucknall Colliery, Miners' Monument, Highest Point in Nottinghamshire, South Normanton Pit, Blackwell Colliery, Silverhill Colliery, Sutton Colliery, Bentinck Mine" - and that's about half of what's within 5 miles.
Though Alfreton Double Tunnel is special.
The Seattle Link is this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox1g45ccoQ8
@TSE could be rescued from his obsession if a credible journalist (eg Not Isabel Oakeshott) could find one.
That would certainly take some of the heat out of the Edinburgh/London markets.
A thin scattering of council houses across every village and town in the country with priority given to longstanding locals and not 'problem people'.
The reality is that council housing has become associated with what it had degraded into by the 1970s - slums in the sky and edge of conurbation sink estates or in the worst cases slums in the sky in edge of conurbation sink estates.
- Allow councils to buy land for housing at current (pre-planning-uplift) values rather than post uplift values
- Reform the "meaningful start" condition so there genuinely is a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to planning permissions so developers have to get on with it. If necessary, introduce a landowner levy on land with planning permission that's not yet built on
- Build ten new garden cities
Even if some did become slums, they'd still be a better solution for people who are currently sharing a bedroom with a stranger in a shared house and aspiring to maybe one day having their own room with a lockable door in an HMO.
Under-utilised surface car parks would be a great location for this. Disused railway sidings. Single storey retail parks on the edge of city centres.
There's a limit to how far you can push it - there aren't ever going to be millions of people living in them. But if you're looking for a quick win, this would be a very good one to go for.
And a dodgy fraud case to extradite her to the UK would be poetic justice - at which point the real charges can be added
Earliest promise I could find was under the coalition in 2014. Ten. Years. Ago. Are we any nearer to building any?
It's anybody ever going to get anything done in Britain?
Try voting Lib Dem next time.
If they need to undermine any new housing to win 3 more votes, that is exactly what they will do. See the Blue Wall, or almost anywhere else.
On one of mine Zadrozny, whilst still a Lib Dem, put out 300 leaflets 48 hours before a Council Planning Committee meeting.
"Find a mob and stand in front of it."
Housing - it's complicated and nuanced and it's not just about building lots of new houses.
I understand the political driver from the Conservative side to create a new generation of home owners but there's nothing wrong with a strong, well-regulated private and public rental sector providing accommodation for those who do not want or cannot afford to own their own home.
There's nothing wrong with renting - Conservatives don't like it because home owners become Tory voters and renters don't and landlords (especially those with bigger portfolios) tend to be Conservative sympathisers. Those who rent are entitled to suitable accommodation and cowboy landlords (who cut costs to enahnce their own profit) need to be controlled.
Beyond that, there's the whole issue of what do you build, where do you build it and how does that impact on pre-existing communities and simply calling people "NIMBYs" for opposing such developments is crass and simplistic. Most people aren't opposed to ALL development but very often will be opposed to the profit-driven overdense developments put forward by developers which are all too often driven by the desire to make money rather than any desire to create sustainable communities.
Conservatives seem at times desperate not to want to conserve - it's perfectly possible to create appropriate developments which can enhance existing communities and this is where the dreaded "P" word comes into it.
There's a lot which could be done to take the profit motive out of land speculation - Land Value Taxation, anyone? In addition, there's the uncomfortable reality there isn't the capacity, thanks to under employment, to build at the capacity we need - there are shortages of both materials and key trades which restrict what can happen and when on any construction project.
There's the small matter of the existing infrastructure - water, sewage, power, transport, health, education, roads to name but seven. Unplanned unregulated development compromises one or more of these and brings additional costs to local residents, councils, utility companies and transport providers to name but four.
That's why we have a Planning process - not to stop development entirely but to ensure new development works for both the local community and the local infrastructure.
Would stem the brain drain to the cities and encourage graduates back after uni.
Meanwhile there are (tens? hundreds? of) thousands of private new developments everywhere you look in the country. We have an affordability problem not a housing problem.
That's another aspect of new housing policy - investment in an area to create jobs should run hand-in-hand with housing investment to build homes for the workers. Whether it's a "company" town as used to be the case or simply an area where both business and residential construction and development is significantly advantaged via tax breaks or other mechanisms I don't know.
I do wonder, though, what proportion of landlords are in this category?
Mind you, I saw an article in the Guardian that started with something like 'I bought flats to rent to each of my two children, but now that they're old enough to have each bought their own house I have become an accidental landlord'. Er, no, you're a very deliberate landlord.
I'd guess that there are plenty of others in a similar situation who would be aggrieved to find that they were caught by any new restrictions.
The Tories have made plenty of garden city related promises since 2015, so still reasonable to expect something might have been done.
JFDI.
A woman on a cycle went past a man in an electric wheelchair on a good quality shared cycling / walking path by the Tramway, in company with a friend. Cue verbal abuse of woman. Wheelchair driven at women pinning her against a fence, causing minor injury.
'What are you doing?'. Wheelchair driven at bike breaking wheel. Chap leaves.
Video submitted to police, so whoever needs to be charged can be charged.
https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news/nottinghamshire/news/appeals/2024/may/appeal-after-cyclist-assaulted-by-man-on-mobility-scooter/
Lessons:
1 - Policing needed to address public highways / permissive paths that are not roads. Intelligence-lead by PCSOs on e-cycles?
2 - In these times of still-slashed resources, the importance of running cameras, no matter what the transport mode. Police may need to be handed minor convictions on a plate.
Fortunately we have a new Police and Crime Commissioner, so innovation may happen.
Steady as she goes. Not much impact from locals or other events.
Either way, the situation is untenable.
Another thing for the next government's intray.
How can a child in care cost £281,000 a year? Ask the wealth funds that have councils over a barrel
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/18/child-care-cost-year-wealth-funds-councils-britain-residential
..The system is in crisis, but crisis is lucrative. The independent review of children’s social care, commissioned by the government after repeated requests from local authorities and published in 2022, makes the crucial point that private providers can “refuse to engage” with attempts to rationalise the system, as they have no incentive to see it reformed. Perpetual chaos means they have councils over a barrel. Systemic dysfunction forces local authorities to make expensive last-minute “spot purchases” of residential care, rather than, for example, building regional care cooperatives, which would forecast and absorb demand, investing in public or not-for-profit provision and enabling children to stay close to home. For this and many other reasons, the review concluded that “providing care for children should not be based on profit”. But the government won’t listen...
We're 6-8 months away from the end of the parliament, so you'd normally expect Lab-Con swingback to be underway by this point. Perhaps significant that we're not seeing any?
Also, as Tarentum, its citadel remained in Roman hands when Hannibal took the city.
No idea what it's like now, though...
He's now a training captain at [CENSORED] and that 100 fags was by no means the stupidest thing I ever saw him do by a long way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0DKsMJl6Z8&t=2106s
The current system makes it look like we actually want NIMBYs and NIMBYism. I mean, if not, why do we go out of our way to create more?
There's an irreducible core of NIMBYs and even BANANAs. There's a similarly irreducible core of Build Build Build.
The ones in the middle range from tending NIMBY to tending Buildy. I've seen them heading NIMBY-wards like electrons when a current is applied, solely due to the way big developers seem to go "Fuck off!" to the locals, to the promised plans as to where to build and where not, and especially to the promised and even committed infrastructure. I've also seen them heading Buildy-wards when infrastructure is promised and they get buy-in to a Neighbourhood Plan which actually gets followed (I've previously given the example of my own village voting overwhelmingly for a Neighbourhood Plan which had been asked to provide a 20% increase in housing and where they voted for a 30% increase; partly because they felt some ownership of the process and partly due to the promised infrastructure.
And then we get countless examples of the infrastructure not being provided and developers merrily ignoring the Neighbourhood Plan and getting away with it.
But can't the Local Authority take enforcement action?
Well, are you a sole resident or very small developer? If so, yay, they can. If not, tough shit. Iteration on iteration of layered and interwoven legislation coupled with "We've got the QCs and you've got the lawyers who'll work for pin money, and any doubt or quibbles mean you get a big fuck off and a bill for costs, ha ha ha ha," means the big developers can often, in effect, seem to do whatever they want.
Surgeries not being built. Schools not being provided. Sewerage systems not joined up even years after houses are built and occupied. Footpath levels being raised to overlook previously private windows against the plans.
Local Authorities approving more development outside those areas because they have no choice in legislation. It's amazing how many people - politically aware people with real nous - seem to think LAs have carte blanche on approvals and rejections. They don't. Get it wrong and you get overruled and costs awarded against you.
This acts like a huge electric current to any in the middle (and even strips of some of the build-build-build electrode) and we accumulate NIMBYism more and more.
But giving councils actual power to enforce the plans and commitments? Blocking dodgy developers from going forwards? Enforcing Neighbourhood Plans? That's crazy talk, that is.
Then they go bust.
As we're seeing happen.
(It's the same issue as housebuilding at one level. Businesses don't exist to build houses or care for damaged children, they exist to make a profit. Usually, doing something well at a fair price is the reliable way to make a profit, but not always. If those two things diverge, we have a problem.)
Apparently it has a really bad reputation for being dodgy and dirty and it is surrounded by steelworks and naval bases - waves at @Dura_Ace - but it has an incredible location - two interlinked islands - one medieval and ancient - and one a beautiful grid of neo classical boulevards - and because of that reputation - almost no tourists. Yay
I shall explore further….
Save for his EURef hubris, Cameron was one of our better post war PMs.
What's your problem with that?
Julian Jessop - one of Truss's advisors iirc - on the economics of the GE:
"But put it all together and it’s an encouraging picture: Britain’s economy is on the verge of a very good year. The sort of year, in fact, that might make voters think twice about gambling on a high-tax, high-spend Labour government.
It’s exactly what Rishi needs before the election. Sir Keir will have a hard job persuading voters things can only get better if they’re already improving rapidly."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/16/sudden-british-boom-hand-sunak-election/
To encourage best practice affordable rents, tax properties the owners don't live in very high but discount that tax when the property is rented on standard long term leases.
The rough guide to puglia:
“Most tourists give Taranto a wide berth…”
Lonely planet:
“Not generally considered to be on the tourist circuit, Taranto is rimmed by modern industry, including a massive steelworks [like] other industrial cities like Bilbao and Pittsburgh – Taranto’s gritty heritage….”
Utterly ridiculous. Taranto is not Pittsburgh. But long may people believe that
I don’t get the mentality. You are either against terrorism or you are in favour of it. They say Israel is terrorist - bad - but like Yemeni terrorism - good.
Anyone got any crayons so I can explain it in a way they will understand?
@Samfr
·
2h
Every MP pushing for a reduced university sector should be asked if they would like to close the one nearest their constituency.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1791767617176297956
That said, my longstanding prediction for how Ukraine would be handled by Republicans was shown to be correct only a couple of weeks ago, couching “aid for Ukraine” as spending taking place primarily inside the US, and supporting millions of American jobs in hundreds of Republican-held districts and States.
There’s probably 10% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats who don’t like the idea of helping Ukraine defend itself, but the 80% of pragmatists in the middle are all for it, especially if the spending goes to some of the biggest donors to both parties, and there’s no American boots on the ground to come home in flag-draped coffins.
No. Taranto was. At one stage it was one of the largest cities in the western world. What a find. Basically no one has ever heard of Taranto until I came here just now
Some of us are very, very familiar with the name of Taranto and can even find it on a map. Not only because we were taught it was a Roman but really Greek city in Magna Graecia called Tarentum, but a very important naval battle happened there in 1940. Its main significance today is that @Dura_Ace and his fellow officers have celebrated it exhaustively at every anniversary - the FAA equivalent of Wembley 1966.
Honestly the way the guidebooks describe it the entire city of covered in filth and you’re lucky to get out of the centro storico alive after 6pm
In reality - so far - it’s like a really appealing Italian version of Valencia but with more history and Italian charm. AND ALMOST NO TOURISTS
The gunroom piano on fire going over the stern of a carrier.
I've watched a Sub Lieutenant stick a condom up his nose and pull it out of his mouth.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
The cost of building out the development is £20 million. The sale value is £32.5 million. This is before affordable housing, planning demands come in to play, and before professional fees and developer profit are taken out. It effectively gives the existing land a nil value.
10 years ago the cost of building out the development would be half what it is now because of cheaper material/labour costs, and less regulation (second staircases etc).
This is the new reality of building on 'brownfield' land. If it won't work in this location the whole country must be in deep trouble.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/18/a-kangaroo-a-possum-and-a-bushrat-walk-into-a-burrow-research-finds-wombat-homes-are-the-supermarkets-of-the-forest
One does feel sorry for the researcher.
' [...] the researcher recalls the “shock” he felt at opening the memory cards of the cameras and realising the monotony of having to look at more than 700,000 images.
He opened the first image in December 2021 and finished in October the following year.
“After [I’d] done the first SD card, and there’s 350,000 on that, I knew what was coming. I was doing it anywhere and everywhere. Mostly at my desk, but sometimes on planes, at airports and on holiday. I had to get this done.
“What kept me going was the thought that the next burst of images could have something interesting on it. I was really hoping to see a spotted quoll.”
He didn’t.'
As I've said passim: you can either support Ukraine or support Trump. Your position is untenable IMO.