Record breakers – politicalbetting.com

Comments

• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:25AM

  Ben Duckett going Bazball this morning in Pakistan. 50 from just 45 balls, including seven fours.

  0
• LostPassword Posts: 17,605

  6:27AM

  It's not many polls, but the most interesting thing about that graph is that it is the Tories that seem to be benefiting most from Labour's decline, despite them recently being so comprehensively ejected from office.
  
  This suggests that there is more life left in two party politics than I have previously supposed.

  3
• Fishing Posts: 4,811

  6:28AM edited 6:31AM

  FPT

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  5
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:28AM edited 6:32AM

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  1
• Casino_Royale Posts: 59,329

  6:30AM

  LostPassword said:

  It's not many polls, but the most interesting thing about that graph is that it is the Tories that seem to be benefiting most from Labour's decline, despite them recently being so comprehensively ejected from office.
  
  This suggests that there is more life left in two party politics than I have previously supposed.

  Lots of Tories just stayed at home.

  1
• DavidL Posts: 53,411

  6:33AM

  I assumed that this was an anticipative thread about Joe Root now 9 runs off beating Chef as the greatest test match run scorer for England ever. I am finding it hard to concentrate on anything else.

  3
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  6:37AM

  Sandpit said:

  Ben Duckett going Bazball this morning in Pakistan. 50 from just 45 balls, including seven fours.

  Ben Duckett with a dislocated thumb is a better batsman than Ollie Pope.
  
  Discuss.

  0
• Fishing Posts: 4,811

  6:38AM

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  3
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:42AM edited 6:43AM

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Yes, but think “and” rather than “or”.
  
  We can learn the lessons of the crap ‘60s tower blocks, we know that there’s now better ways to build communities with houses to own, houses to rent, and social housing all alongside each other to avoid creating slums.
  
  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff. Also need to work with banks on both self-build and prefab housing, they both need to be easily mortgageable.

  2
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:46AM

  100 partnership between Root and Duckett at six an over. Great cricket to watch.

  1
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  6:47AM

  Fishing said:

  FPT
  
  

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  Decent idea - but I thought you guys were against identity politics.
  Or was that just the last thread ?

  0
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  6:48AM

  There it is, Joe Root, record breaker.

  2
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  6:49AM

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  0
• squareroot2 Posts: 6,591

  6:49AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Sandpit said:

  Ben Duckett going Bazball this morning in Pakistan. 50 from just 45 balls, including seven fours.

  Ben Duckett with a dislocated thumb is a better batsman than Ollie Pope.
  
  Discuss.

  Horses for courses

  0
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  6:51AM

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  0
• Benpointer Posts: 34,397

  6:51AM

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Indeed. We are just in the process of buying a plot on which we have an offer accepted. It's not perfect and it's expensive but there are precisely zero other single plots available within 15 miles below double what we are paying.

  2
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:51AM

  There’s now definitely only one Joe Root!

  0
• squareroot2 Posts: 6,591

  6:51AM

  The most amazing thing about the Eng Cricket score is that in 42 overs there has only been one extra.

  1
• LostPassword Posts: 17,605

  6:53AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  Maybe he'll be in England when he goes past Ponting's tally of runs. That will surely raise a cheer or two.

  0
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  6:54AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  A few hundred would do nicely for this innings.
  How many did you have in mind ?

  1
• Taz Posts: 13,780

  6:56AM

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality,
  

  Quality at the moment isn't exactly great. Hard to see how it could be worse. I wouldn't touch a new build.
  
  Also with new build apparently the council, in some cases, doesn't adopt all the land so people end up with ground rent for shared areas. My manager bought new build in Blyth about 6 years ago. He had to pay £140 a year now it is £180 a year for people to come and mow a shared grassy area once in a blue moon.
  
  Crazy.
  

  3
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:56AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  Why is the ground so empty? High ticket prices, midweek fixture?
  
  I really wish sports event organisers, of any sport, would hand out tickets to local amateur clubs and schools if they’re not going to fill the seats. The marginal cost of doing it is almost nothing, and the Multan cricket ground can hold 35,000 spectators. I’d be surprised if there’s 3,500 there today to witness Root’s achievement.

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  6:59AM

  Sandpit said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  Why is the ground so empty? High ticket prices, midweek fixture?
  
  I really wish sports event organisers, of any sport, would hand out tickets to local amateur clubs and schools if they’re not going to fill the seats. The marginal cost of doing it is almost nothing, and the Multan cricket ground can hold 35,000 spectators. I’d be surprised if there’s 3,500 there today to witness Root’s achievement.

  That and the slow death of test cricket.
  
  If you are of limited income you are going to focus spending your money on T20s and ODIs.

  0
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  6:59AM edited 7:03AM

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  Not mass immigration at all, but allowing skilled workers in areas where there is a shortage of skills for nationally important tasks. The first thing they can build is their own accommodation!

  1
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  7:04AM

  Sandpit said:

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  Not mass immigration at all, but allowing skilled workers in areas where there is a shortage of skills for nationally important tasks.

  It is still mass migration of workers in direct competition to the WWC voters you were crying crocodile tears for on the last thread.

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  7:08AM

  Taz said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality,
  

  Quality at the moment isn't exactly great. Hard to see how it could be worse. I wouldn't touch a new build.
  
  Also with new build apparently the council, in some cases, doesn't adopt all the land so people end up with ground rent for shared areas. My manager bought new build in Blyth about 6 years ago. He had to pay £140 a year now it is £180 a year for people to come and mow a shared grassy area once in a blue moon.
  
  Crazy.
  

  Unadopted roads is also a problem particularly for new builds.
  
  There are two main types of private or unadopted road: those on new developments such as housing estates and those which, usually by historic accident, have existed for a long time, often since the nineteenth century. A Department of Transport survey in 1972 found that there were then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up some 4,000 miles of road. No later survey has been undertaken but the figure is thought not to have changed much. The Labour Government estimated in 2009 that it would cost £3 billion to make up these roads to an adoptable standard.
  
  The law on the maintenance and adoption of private roads in England and Wales is highly complex. It is largely contained in Part XI of the Highways Act 1980. Briefly, a private or unadopted road is by definition a highway not maintainable at public expense. The local highway authority is therefore under no obligation to pay for its maintenance. Responsibility for the cost of maintaining a private road rests with the frontagers (the owners of properties which front onto such roads).
  
  https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00402/

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  7:10AM

  Nigelb said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  A few hundred would do nicely for this innings.
  How many did you have in mind ?

  401 or more.

  1
• JosiasJessop Posts: 41,688

  7:11AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Taz said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality,
  

  Quality at the moment isn't exactly great. Hard to see how it could be worse. I wouldn't touch a new build.
  
  Also with new build apparently the council, in some cases, doesn't adopt all the land so people end up with ground rent for shared areas. My manager bought new build in Blyth about 6 years ago. He had to pay £140 a year now it is £180 a year for people to come and mow a shared grassy area once in a blue moon.
  
  Crazy.
  

  Unadopted roads is also a problem particularly for new builds.
  
  There are two main types of private or unadopted road: those on new developments such as housing estates and those which, usually by historic accident, have existed for a long time, often since the nineteenth century. A Department of Transport survey in 1972 found that there were then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up some 4,000 miles of road. No later survey has been undertaken but the figure is thought not to have changed much. The Labour Government estimated in 2009 that it would cost £3 billion to make up these roads to an adoptable standard.
  
  The law on the maintenance and adoption of private roads in England and Wales is highly complex. It is largely contained in Part XI of the Highways Act 1980. Briefly, a private or unadopted road is by definition a highway not maintainable at public expense. The local highway authority is therefore under no obligation to pay for its maintenance. Responsibility for the cost of maintaining a private road rests with the frontagers (the owners of properties which front onto such roads).
  
  https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00402/

  In my village, they're being adopted around ten years after construction finishes. Though to be fair to the developers, they were sending a lorry around to suck out the kerbside drains every year, and the streeltights were being maintained (I think by them).
  
  Around here at least, a bigger problem is the top surfacing not being put on roads long after houses are occupied, meaning pavements and kerbs are trickier to negotiate with prams or wheelchairs. Though again, that varies, and when the developers do get around to it, they generally do it properly.

  0
• LostPassword Posts: 17,605

  7:14AM

  Western support for Ukraine is so lacking that Ukraine is now considering allowing exports of its military drones to generate export earnings to pay for more domestic production.
  
  All of Ukraine's domestic production should be focused on winning the war against Russia. It's nuts that a lack of support from other democracies would lead them to this sort of step.

  4
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  7:17AM edited 7:18AM

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  1
• Mexicanpete Posts: 27,609

  7:17AM

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  I don't know.
  
  The God that is working class hero Alexander Johnson, currently engaged in a gaslighting book launch tour around his fiefdom stated after Brexit that any shortfall in workers could be offset by "our friends from the Indian Subcontinent". Can't imagine the RedWall would have a problem with Mr Johnson's wise words.

  0
• FF43 Posts: 17,046

  7:17AM

  I'm guessing the record was already broken with the election results?

  0
• Cookie Posts: 13,216

  7:20AM

  Yeah, because SPLORG.

  1
• Cookie Posts: 13,216

  7:23AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Sandpit said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  I am slightly disappointed for Joe Root.
  
  This should have been in England, a full house of Lord's or Headingley would have seen a 10 minute standing ovation instead of few hundred.

  Why is the ground so empty? High ticket prices, midweek fixture?
  
  I really wish sports event organisers, of any sport, would hand out tickets to local amateur clubs and schools if they’re not going to fill the seats. The marginal cost of doing it is almost nothing, and the Multan cricket ground can hold 35,000 spectators. I’d be surprised if there’s 3,500 there today to witness Root’s achievement.

  That and the slow death of test cricket.
  
  If you are of limited income you are going to focus spending your money on T20s and ODIs.

  Not sure it's any cheaper to see an ODI than a day at the Test?

  0
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  7:23AM edited 7:24AM

  LostPassword said:

  Western support for Ukraine is so lacking that Ukraine is now considering allowing exports of its military drones to generate export earnings to pay for more domestic production.
  
  All of Ukraine's domestic production should be focused on winning the war against Russia. It's nuts that a lack of support from other democracies would lead them to this sort of step.

  Not entirely.
  
  It's also about scaling up their drone industry - and NATO countries would certainly benefit from Ukrainian drone expertise. Depends on the details, of course, but this could easily be a win/win policy.
  
  (But I agree entirely about the extent of western support.)

  2
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  7:26AM

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  Not mass immigration at all, but allowing skilled workers in areas where there is a shortage of skills for nationally important tasks.

  It is still mass migration of workers in direct competition to the WWC voters you were crying crocodile tears for on the last thread.

  We don’t use the same perjorative language to describe care workers and nurses, do we?
  
  If we need to build a million houses a year, then we need to find people to do that, which means more training programmes and temporary immigration to fill the hole, same as in the health service.

  0
• Cookie Posts: 13,216

  7:29AM

  Fishing said:

  FPT
  
  

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  ...and demand no sort of special treatment ot changes to the native culture to accommodate them.
  My suburb of South Mamchester is apparently target #1 for Hong Kong immigrants.
  Which is something of a challenge for local schools: my youngest's primary school has gone from 5% non-white to 40% non-white in the last five years (not just Hong Kongers; a lot of Indians and others too).
  It's testament to the integratability of Hong Kongers that this has been managed almost without incident.
  There really is no slack at all in schools around here, mind. No element of choice - you get what you're given.

  2
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  7:33AM

  Sandpit said:

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  Not mass immigration at all, but allowing skilled workers in areas where there is a shortage of skills for nationally important tasks.

  It is still mass migration of workers in direct competition to the WWC voters you were crying crocodile tears for on the last thread.

  We don’t use the same perjorative language to describe care workers and nurses, do we?
  
  If we need to build a million houses a year, then we need to find people to do that, which means more training programmes and temporary immigration to fill the hole, same as in the health service.

  You illustrate well how the "zero net migration" policy of the right collapses when it collides with the reality of the country, with significant labour and skill shortages in many sectors, and the need for overseas students for "invisible earnings" of our education sector.
  
  It isn't me who opposes inward immigration, it is your parties.

  1
• Stuartinromford Posts: 16,703

  7:33AM

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  1
• Fishing Posts: 4,811

  7:35AM

  Benpointer said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Indeed. We are just in the process of buying a plot on which we have an offer accepted. It's not perfect and it's expensive but there are precisely zero other single plots available within 15 miles below double what we are paying.

  Best of luck with it.
  
  Did you have any trouble getting finance? Some people say that's an issue with self-build in the UK. And do you have planning permission already or are you sorting that out?

  0
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  7:36AM edited 7:37AM

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  It's not unlikely that this government proves to be disappointing, but still something of an improvement on the previous one.
  
  Of course it's also possible that it turns out to be worse.

  1
• biggles Posts: 5,733

  7:38AM

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  I agree with that. We’re about to test his luck. So much depends on factors outside of his control, like the next US President not sparking a trade war that generates a deep recession, and how sane the Tories act. But he can only do what he can do, and focusing on things that deliver in 3-4 years, while kicking off some 8-9 year punts, seems sensible.
  

  0
• Morris_Dancer Posts: 61,573

  7:39AM

  Special story just for Mr. Eagles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwye80dqy2ro

  0
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  7:39AM

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  I think one of the problems with HS2 is it being over engineered, so unessecarily expensive. A slightly less high speed brings the costs down, and also makes intermediate stations possible that could be new towns with excellent communication links.

  1
• Cookie Posts: 13,216

  7:40AM

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  Yeah, this is the one cooked up by the Birmingham and Manchestet city regions along with their respective mayors last year. The last government were not unreceptive to it and this lot appear so far to have given it the same response.

  0
• moonshine Posts: 5,553

  7:40AM

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Hmmm. Mortgage rates are lower, marginal difference on votes perhaps. But Starmer would be tying himself in knots on Lebanon trying to maintain his voting coalition. Bit more bleed to the Greens. The big one though, is what if the Lord Alli stuff had come out before rather than after the election. I think that would have been enough to enter NOM territory and it’s suspicious that they managed to keep it quiet until now.
  

  0
• JosiasJessop Posts: 41,688

  7:41AM

  Twix and revenge porn:
  
  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/study-fastest-way-to-get-revenge-porn-off-x-is-a-dmca-takedown/

  0
• HYUFD Posts: 121,372

  7:41AM

  The major shift since the general election though has been Labour down but Tories little changed. Which overall under FPTP means significant seat gains for the Tories

  0
• moonshine Posts: 5,553

  7:42AM

  Foxy said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  I think one of the problems with HS2 is it being over engineered, so unessecarily expensive. A slightly less high speed brings the costs down, and also makes intermediate stations possible that could be new towns with excellent communication links.

  Isn’t half the idea of hs2 that by relieving the existing mainline, it adds ginourmous new capacity to places like Milton Keynes, which is already there and might feasibly be drastically expanded in size?

  0
• nico679 Posts: 5,963

  7:43AM

  This is what the Dems are up against in Ohio .
  
  The GOP led state legislature are only allowing one early voting location per county regardless of population. So Franklin county population 1.4 million and a more rural location with around 12,000 population get the same .
  
  The GOP want to reduce the chances of early voting and want more restrictions on mail in ballots so they can force more urban voters to be waiting hours on election day.
  
  Hoping that they’ll give up and go home.
  
  

  1
• FrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,594

  7:44AM edited 7:47AM

  F##k me, apparently Boris is getting £2 million advance for his book*....The publishers are never earning that back.
  
  * amusingly they split it into 4 chunks, 3 of the 4 being after the release, to make sure he actually delivered it.

  2
• HYUFD Posts: 121,372

  7:46AM

  Mexicanpete said:

  Foxy said:

  Sandpit said:

  Fishing said:

  Sandpit said:

  FPT

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The only way the housing problem gets fixed is by doing what was done after WWII, building *millions* of new dwellings as quickly as possible.
  
  Treat it as the single biggest problem facing the country, and get all of the red tape that stops it happening out of the way. Yes that includes a fair bit of planning law, and all the new construction standards aimed at energy efficiency which add a lot of costs for marginal gains (FU, Ed Miliband!). Get factories set up to build prefab houses, and have them turn out thousands per week.
  
  But I don’t see any of the lawyers and managerial types in government or the senior CS having any idea of just how far out of the box they need to think.
  

  For decades our governments have been captured by the housebuilding industry. I agree that we need a revolution in thinking here more than virtually any other area of public policy. The trouble with the "get 'em built" philosophy is that we'd probably end up compromising on quality, as indeed we did in the sixties and that gave us Ronan Point and the Trellick Tower that scar our cities.
  
  My own solution would be designate hundreds of thousands of plots for self-build and sell them to individuals. 60% of new houses in France and Germany and 80% in Austria are self-built. People who have their own houses built have a strong incentive to build quality, decent looking homes that they want to live in, unlike speculative, oligopolistic builders whose incentive is to build whatever shoddy crap will sell quickly.
  

  Agree completely that the solution involves pretty much sidelining the existing large builders unless they are going to play ball. Fast track visas for trades if the new builders can’t get enough staff.

  So the solution is mass immigration? I detect a teensy flaw...

  I don't know.
  
  The God that is working class hero Alexander Johnson, currently engaged in a gaslighting book launch tour around his fiefdom stated after Brexit that any shortfall in workers could be offset by "our friends from the Indian Subcontinent". Can't imagine the RedWall would have a problem with Mr Johnson's wise words.

  To be fair to Sunak and Jenrick they also tightened the visa entry requirements for migrants from outside the EU by raising the salary threshold required

  0
• JosiasJessop Posts: 41,688

  7:46AM

  Foxy said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  I think one of the problems with HS2 is it being over engineered, so unessecarily expensive. A slightly less high speed brings the costs down, and also makes intermediate stations possible that could be new towns with excellent communication links.

  "A slightly less high speed brings the costs down"
  
  Not by much AIUI - unless you go sub 100MPH.

  0
• biggles Posts: 5,733

  7:46AM

  moonshine said:

  Foxy said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  I think one of the problems with HS2 is it being over engineered, so unessecarily expensive. A slightly less high speed brings the costs down, and also makes intermediate stations possible that could be new towns with excellent communication links.

  Isn’t half the idea of hs2 that by relieving the existing mainline, it adds ginourmous new capacity to places like Milton Keynes, which is already there and might feasibly be drastically expanded in size?

  The problem with expanding Milton Keynes is that you have to find people who are willing to live in Milton Keynes.
  

  2
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  7:47AM

  JosiasJessop said:

  Twix and revenge porn:
  
  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/study-fastest-way-to-get-revenge-porn-off-x-is-a-dmca-takedown/

  I note Musk has surrendered in the argument with Brazil, and accepted that he has to comply with their law.

  1
• Casino_Royale Posts: 59,329

  7:48AM

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  0
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  7:54AM

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Special story just for Mr. Eagles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwye80dqy2ro

  I’m still in denial, Jürgen Klopp is still my manager.
  
  I am not sure I am ready (or ever will be) for the Klopp and Max Verstappen Red Bull crossover event.

  1
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  7:55AM

  JosiasJessop said:

  Foxy said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  I think one of the problems with HS2 is it being over engineered, so unessecarily expensive. A slightly less high speed brings the costs down, and also makes intermediate stations possible that could be new towns with excellent communication links.

  "A slightly less high speed brings the costs down"
  
  Not by much AIUI - unless you go sub 100MPH.

  In a geographically compact country interconnectibility matters more than velocity. It's why Old Oak Common is not suitable.
  
  No stops between London and Brum means no benefit to the towns between on the HS2, if there were intermediate stations then local support would have been more likely.

  0
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  7:55AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  0
• biggles Posts: 5,733

  7:56AM edited 7:57AM

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  F##k me, apparently Boris is getting £2 million advance for his book*....The publishers are never earning that back.
  
  * amusingly they split it into 4 chunks, 3 of the 4 being after the release, to make sure he actually delivered it.

  It will have more legs in the rest of the English speaking world that any since Blair, and could be a curiosity in Europe. I dunno. What do numbers look like on books? If you stay out of the bargain buckets, I assume you can make a few quid per copy, and Boris being Boris will take away some need for marketing spend.
  

  0
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  7:56AM

  What possible business could an out of office US president have to call Vladimir Putin (at least) seven times?
  https://x.com/EdwardGLuce/status/1843643186746712271
  
  How many times - other than his recent meeting - has he spoken to Zelensky, for example ?
  

  0
• No_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,424

  7:56AM

  Fishing said:

  FPT
  
  

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  Paddy Ashdown suggested that years ago, and was shouted down.

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  7:57AM

  Sandpit said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  I read that link as Bazinga.
  
  The Big Bang Theory fans will understand.

  0
• Morris_Dancer Posts: 61,573

  7:58AM

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  0
• FrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,594

  7:59AM edited 8:01AM

  biggles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  F##k me, apparently Boris is getting £2 million advance for his book*....The publishers are never earning that back.
  
  * amusingly they split it into 4 chunks, 3 of the 4 being after the release, to make sure he actually delivered it.

  It will have more legs in the rest of the English speaking world that any since Blair, and could be a curiosity in Europe. I dunno. What do numbers look like on books? If you stay out of the bargain buckets, I assume you can make a few quid per copy, and Boris being Boris will take away some need for marketing spend.
  

  In general not many copies. Cameron's book did 20k in the first week, May, Truss, Brown, ranging from low to mid 1000s. Blair was the big one and did 100k first week. And then I think the drop off in sales is rapid with these books.
  
  Apparently he also gets £1 million a year from the Mail and those in the know think it was really for the extracts. So the publishers, Harper Collins, which is News Corp, normally get some of the advance back by selling the rights to a News Corp publication, but in this case they haven't even done that.
  
  Boris has basically made £3 million big ones.

  1
• Pulpstar Posts: 77,518

  7:59AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  Between the hurricanes, the lawsuits and the various home repair costs I see banded about on twitter (Which seem to be much higher than here) I'm surprised anyone in the 'south' of the USA can insure their homes at all. I expect the quotes are considerably higher than over here.

  2
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  7:59AM

  No_Offence_Alan said:

  Fishing said:

  FPT
  
  

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  Paddy Ashdown suggested that years ago, and was shouted down.

  Indeed it was Mrs Thatcher who denied the Hong Kongers the right to migrate here with her 1981 nationality act (Falkland Islanders too as I recall).

  1
• moonshine Posts: 5,553

  7:59AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  Florida was barely populated prior to ww2. It’s not a sensible place for mass conurbations, even more so with growing extremes in weather patterns. The young nation of the USA is learning the same painful lessons that Europeans learnt millennia ago on where to place large population densities. Learning the lessons rather slowly however.
  

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  8:00AM

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  1
• IanB2 Posts: 49,657

  8:01AM

  nico679 said:

  This is what the Dems are up against in Ohio .
  
  The GOP led state legislature are only allowing one early voting location per county regardless of population. So Franklin county population 1.4 million and a more rural location with around 12,000 population get the same .
  
  The GOP want to reduce the chances of early voting and want more restrictions on mail in ballots so they can force more urban voters to be waiting hours on election day.
  
  Hoping that they’ll give up and go home.
  
  

  And there’s the answer, of course, to yesterday’s question about why so many more Dems are sending papers back early, if they can. They tend to be the ones living in the larger, urban counties.

  2
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  8:01AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  Latest from Gov DeSantis in Florida. Largest ever mobilisation of National Guard in the State.
  
  They’re taking it really seriously. Storm is around 18 hours away now.
  
  https://x.com/govrondesantis/status/1843758093974302868
  
  Today, I visited a logistics staging area at the Florida Horse Park in Ocala, one of our many staging sites just outside Hurricane Milton’s projected path. Florida and our partners have spent the past few days deploying personnel and equipment to strategically located sites like this.
  
  Nearly 600 ambulances and more than 30 paratransits are in operation. They will be nearby and ready to save lives as soon as the hurricane passes. The National Guard is deploying aerial, water, and ground search and rescue teams for the largest National Guard search and rescue mobilization in Florida history.
  
  Florida will have 43,000 linemen staged from all over the country, and they’ll be ready to restore power when it’s safe to do so.
  
  Now is the time to execute your plan and follow any evacuation orders from your local officials. Your home can be rebuilt, your possessions can be replaced, but we cannot replace a life lost to the storm.
  
  We are grateful for everyone who is stepping up to help, and we will get through this together.

  0
• moonshine Posts: 5,553

  8:02AM

  Foxy said:

  No_Offence_Alan said:

  Fishing said:

  FPT
  
  

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  Paddy Ashdown suggested that years ago, and was shouted down.

  Indeed it was Mrs Thatcher who denied the Hong Kongers the right to migrate here with her 1981 nationality act (Falkland Islanders too as I recall).

  What was the history on why Britain didn’t extend the lease over Hong Kong in the mid-late 20th C when chinas economy was on its knees?

  0
• FrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,594

  8:02AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  0
• biggles Posts: 5,733

  8:02AM

  Sandpit said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  What I don’t understand is why their newish builds still appear to be built out of balsa wood. You’d think the economics would mean that Floridian homes would be hurricane resistant in the same way Japan is earthquake resistant.
  

  0
• darkage Posts: 5,236

  8:03AM

  FPT

  MattW said:

  darkage said:

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The biggest problem in my view (also picking up @Sandpit's other point) is just that there has been no coherant strategy in housing policy for over a decade most famously characterised by the rapid turnover of housing and planning ministers in the latter years of the last government. The government cannot control the narrative so they just end up pandering to the demands of populist lobby groups and policy drifts towards unwanted outcomes like we are seeing.
  
  It has got to the point where there is a case for provision of prefabricated emergency housing IE the kind that they build in war zones, but that itself would be an astounding admission of state failure, and isn't in a long term solution as the infrastructure/connectivity problems would remain.
  
  For entertainment value: there is quite an story doing the rounds about new social housing being put up in Scotland, 15 houses being built at £535k each to meet 'net zero' standards, the existing houses nearby cost £150k each.
  
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13915421/Council-spends-8million-15-affordable-homes-bid-meet-eco-planning-rules-costs-ultimately-repaid-tenants.html

  Huge exaggerations and added Grunting by the Mail, there, imo . Plus some gold plating and I suspect a lot of traditional inefficiency.
  
  The standard they claim to meet - Silver - is not actually that high up the Scottish scale and has been around since 2011 afaics.
  
  Most of it is not down to Net Zero, and the low energy features quoted are mainly marginal extra costs at build time. A larger problem may be the need for a workforce with particular skills. The site is between a canal and the Antonine Wall, and they include extras such as a Home Office space, and 2/15 are fully wheelchair accessible - which justifies extra.
  
  Further, in 2024 3G is not usually necessary for Passive, and I suspect they may have extra registration costs with Passive House Trust etc.
  
  DM quotes £535k each for an "£8m scheme". That is up from £7.1m quoted by the Glasgow Herald on October 1st.
  https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-news/24621865.construction-begin-7-1m-housing-development/
  
  Build cost is quoted as £420k. TBH I would guestmate those to be deliverable for maybe £300-325k each build cost on that site.
  
  The comparison with "buy an old one for £150k does not really hold imo - those will need a *lot* of money investing.
  
  The Times piece is a little better:
  https://archive.ph/ZQHnN

  I've said since circa 2021 that many issues in housing delivery are with build cost. I can't really understand what the environmental standards are adding from a raw economic perspective. I get the 'net zero'/decarbonisation argument. But what is it for the ordinary tenant/owner- £100 a month on electricity bills? That is going to be wiped out by maintenance costs on the technology involved and added interest on build cost. I would have thought this is good territory for RefUK.

  1
• IanB2 Posts: 49,657

  8:03AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  Having insurance isn’t as universal there as it is here, and many of the extras - hurricanes, floods, etc. - have to be insured by add-on packages bought and priced separately from the ‘core’ policy. So even homes that have basic insurance may not have hurricane cover or flood cover. It’s why Helene was such a disaster for NC and this new one looks like delivering the same to FL.

  2
• JosiasJessop Posts: 41,688

  8:04AM

  Foxy said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Foxy said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  Foxy said:

  On topic, I don't think polling at 100 days post this GE can be directly compared with previous elections, not least because some of the comparisons are with incumbents.
  
  Having a July election followed by a long summer break then a month off for conferences means that little has really happened apart from a few photo-opportunities with foreign leaders. It's only now we are really starting to see what a Starmer government will be like.
  
  Starmer's plan for GE 2029 looks to be on delivery, very much the "are you better off now than 4 years ago?" approach. It might work, if Labour does deliver on waiting lists, housing, immigration control, criminal justice etc.
  
  To look at the counterfactual: if Sunak had held out for an October election rather than gone in July, would we now be looking at a very different election result? I think not. The drop in the popularity of Labour is down to being in government but not yet doing anything positive.
  
  

  Talking of which, another bit of "can't confirm until the Spending Review, but here's a bit of ankle" story...
  
  An “HS2-light” railway line between Birmingham and Manchester would be built under plans being considered by ministers.
  
  In a rethink of Rishi Sunak’s decision to entirely scrap the high-speed line beyond Birmingham, senior government figures are looking at a proposal which they believe can be delivered much more cheaply than the original scheme.
  
  https://www.thetimes.com/article/e0b784f0-fb04-4c5f-9814-4144b1bd5e02?shareToken=5dfa43fbd1a2978d8859809f8305a17f
  
  Better politics than leaving a blank space for opponents to fill, and another bit of accepting reality.

  I think one of the problems with HS2 is it being over engineered, so unessecarily expensive. A slightly less high speed brings the costs down, and also makes intermediate stations possible that could be new towns with excellent communication links.

  "A slightly less high speed brings the costs down"
  
  Not by much AIUI - unless you go sub 100MPH.

  In a geographically compact country interconnectibility matters more than velocity. It's why Old Oak Common is not suitable.
  
  No stops between London and Brum means no benefit to the towns between on the HS2, if there were intermediate stations then local support would have been more likely.

  Your last paragraph is an old argument by anti-HS2 people that is utterly wrong. Those towns 'benefit' because they may well end up getting more services on their existing railway lines, once the long-distance paths are shifted onto HS2.
  
  A series of documents were produced years ago that gave how the then-planned HS2 services would impact many existing routes and services. The vast majority of places saw overall benefit.

  1
• Nigelb Posts: 69,167

  8:04AM edited 8:07AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  I think most homeowners' insurance (in coastal areas) excludes flood cover.
  
  There is, though, a federal government program.
  (Note just about every Florida Republican in Congress regularly votes against FEMA and similar funding.)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Program

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  8:06AM

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  0
• FrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,594

  8:06AM edited 8:07AM

  Nandy eventually caved under pressure and launched on an offensive:
  
  “You know, we’re now in a situation where I mean you know most of Sky News was at these events in these same boxes as well to be completely fair.”
  
  Burley hit back: “Who was there? I paid for my tickets. Don’t do that, no.” Nandy claimed Keir Starmer had paid for his too. A few weeks late, mind…
  
  Nandy couldn’t name any other Sky personnel who went along for free when asked and ended with: “People can judge for themselves.“
  
  https://order-order.com/2024/10/09/nandy-caught-out-in-labour-swiftie-freebie-row/
  
  Who is doing PR for the Labour party. They are absolutely shit. Lets say Sky were on a freebie there, a) its not the same as politicians and b) you want to piss the media off this early in parliament by throwing shit and missing?

  1
• Foxy Posts: 47,951

  8:07AM

  darkage said:

  FPT
  

  MattW said:

  darkage said:

  Fishing said:

  darkage said:

  MattW said:

  Good monring all.
  
  This is a story about the Renters Rights Bill, and the desire to limit upfront payments to 5 week's rent on tenancies. That will limit, for example, abilities for tenants to access tenancies which are to start later (lots of complicated issues around the interim and reasons). And will undermine the flexibility available to some prospective tenants.
  
  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwjye2xvpo
  
  As an LL I support most of the proposed measures as being rational moves that will further reduce unacceptable behaviour towards tenants, based on evidence.
  
  The support by the Housing Minister for limiting up front payments for a tenancy to 5 weeks is concerning.
  
  It reminds me of the pratfall in Parliament last time round when deposits were restricted to 5 weeks max, from 8 weeks. The former Shelter Senior staffer at Shelter who was Shadow Housing Minister Sarah Jones, argued both that "'this needs to be reduced because landlords will exploit the 8 weeks', and 'it can be reduced because landlords don't use it' - in the same debate.
  
  What that actually did was make pet tenancies far more complex to manage because at least two of the traditional measures - a higher deposit to cover damage, or a term for T to do or pay for a professional clean at the end - became criminal offences. The only option left was a higher rent.
  
  But organisations such as Shelter and Generation Rent are anti-landlord rather than pro-tenant, and it shows. It also shows in their focus on Private Sector vs the Social - on a number of metrics around eg satisfaction the PRS has been ahead for many years.
  
  This measure will make selection of tenants even more small-c conservative and careful, since assurance measures applicable after the start have essentially all been banned.
  
  It will blow back on local Councils, who routinely expect LLs to be a social policeman, whilst any effective measures to do such have been removed.
  
  (I'll perhaps FPT this, later.)

  I did some viewings yesterday on flats in London. 3 out of 4 were landlords selling up and tenants being evicted. 2 out of the 3 properties were perfect rental properties - IE low maintenance low rise purpose built blocks, being managed by an active freeholder.
  The last estate agent had been in the game 25 years and said that investors are rapidly exiting the market.
  If they stay in the market then they will need to be incentivised by rents going up - so the net effect of all this will probably be a reduction in quality rental properties and significant rent inflation.
  In the longer term it will mean a shift to professional landlords, build to rent, HMO's etc but it will take years for this sector to compensate for the reduction in private rented sector properties.
  Obviously there is another category of the private rented sector that will be unaffected by all this, the part that doesn't follow the regulations at all. Despite the lobbying there is a strange lack of action in this respect.
  The laws are difficult to enforce and the bodies that have to do it (ie Council's) are unable to direct resources in to this as the costs cannot be easily recovered.
  
  It is quite surprising that Labour have jumped on to this policy as I think the beneficiaries of it are first time buyers (ie classic tory voters) and the losers will be renters.
  
  
  

  It's not surprising at all. Badly-thought through social interventions that backfire and damage those they are designed to help while causing lots of unintended side effects aren't so much a failing of Starmer's (and Gove's) brand of interventionist, statist managerialism as its defining characteristic.
  
  And our housing market is particularly littered with such.

  The biggest problem in my view (also picking up @Sandpit's other point) is just that there has been no coherant strategy in housing policy for over a decade most famously characterised by the rapid turnover of housing and planning ministers in the latter years of the last government. The government cannot control the narrative so they just end up pandering to the demands of populist lobby groups and policy drifts towards unwanted outcomes like we are seeing.
  
  It has got to the point where there is a case for provision of prefabricated emergency housing IE the kind that they build in war zones, but that itself would be an astounding admission of state failure, and isn't in a long term solution as the infrastructure/connectivity problems would remain.
  
  For entertainment value: there is quite an story doing the rounds about new social housing being put up in Scotland, 15 houses being built at £535k each to meet 'net zero' standards, the existing houses nearby cost £150k each.
  
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13915421/Council-spends-8million-15-affordable-homes-bid-meet-eco-planning-rules-costs-ultimately-repaid-tenants.html

  Huge exaggerations and added Grunting by the Mail, there, imo . Plus some gold plating and I suspect a lot of traditional inefficiency.
  
  The standard they claim to meet - Silver - is not actually that high up the Scottish scale and has been around since 2011 afaics.
  
  Most of it is not down to Net Zero, and the low energy features quoted are mainly marginal extra costs at build time. A larger problem may be the need for a workforce with particular skills. The site is between a canal and the Antonine Wall, and they include extras such as a Home Office space, and 2/15 are fully wheelchair accessible - which justifies extra.
  
  Further, in 2024 3G is not usually necessary for Passive, and I suspect they may have extra registration costs with Passive House Trust etc.
  
  DM quotes £535k each for an "£8m scheme". That is up from £7.1m quoted by the Glasgow Herald on October 1st.
  https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/scottish-news/24621865.construction-begin-7-1m-housing-development/
  
  Build cost is quoted as £420k. TBH I would guestmate those to be deliverable for maybe £300-325k each build cost on that site.
  
  The comparison with "buy an old one for £150k does not really hold imo - those will need a *lot* of money investing.
  
  The Times piece is a little better:
  https://archive.ph/ZQHnN

  I've said since circa 2021 that many issues in housing delivery are with build cost. I can't really understand what the environmental standards are adding from a raw economic perspective. I get the 'net zero'/decarbonisation argument. But what is it for the ordinary tenant/owner- £100 a month on electricity bills? That is going to be wiped out by maintenance costs on the technology involved and added interest on build cost. I would have thought this is good territory for RefUK.

  I suspect that most of the extra cost is down to building on a brownfield colliery site. These houses are on the passivhaus principle, which is in widespread use elsewhere. It is designed to need little maintenence as the energy efficiency is passive, rather than active.

  0
• FrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,594

  8:08AM edited 8:08AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Each to their own, but I personally don't see the attraction of such large tvs. They just completely dominate the room, even a large one.

  0
• boulay Posts: 5,382

  8:08AM

  IanB2 said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  Having insurance isn’t as universal there as it is here, and many of the extras - hurricanes, floods, etc. - have to be insured by add-on packages bought and priced separately from the ‘core’ policy. So even homes that have basic insurance may not have hurricane cover or flood cover. It’s why Helene was such a disaster for NC and this new one looks like delivering the same to FL.

  They were interviewing a lot of people on R4 this morning - was actually to their credit some very good coverage by the beeb - and one of the Mayors was saying that many many areas have been uninsurable for decades but the people have lived there for
  Longer So they won’t move.

  0
• williamglenn Posts: 50,762

  8:08AM

  Trump's townhall with the Latin American network Univision has been postponed because of the hurricane. His will now be after Harris's.

  0
• darkage Posts: 5,236

  8:09AM

  I think there is a big political failure on housing policy. If you want to build 1.5 million homes then the necessary procedural framework can be built through primary legislation; the civil servants need to get on and do it, tell them it is 25000 per month you expect delivered at a minimum, if they fail at the end of the month, then demote them and get Elon Musk type characters in from outside. What you have instead is politicians just being led by the blob in an atmosphere of false comfort and security and they are delivering nothing, housing completions are going down, announcements are being delayed, etc.

  3
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  8:09AM

  biggles said:

  Sandpit said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  What I don’t understand is why their newish builds still appear to be built out of balsa wood. You’d think the economics would mean that Floridian homes would be hurricane resistant in the same way Japan is earthquake resistant.
  

  AIUI a lot of the new builds have a “safe room”, made of concrete and designed to survive a hurricane.
  
  There’s almost no construction method that can keep a whole house up in 180mph winds, at least not without exorbitant cost, so you might as well make them out of your traditional American timber construction and rebuild after the storm.
  
  https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/safe-rooms
  
  As noted above, there’s no ‘shelter in place’ order for this storm, it’s a full evacuation.

  0
• rottenborough Posts: 61,734

  8:10AM

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  How Biden responds to this might well be a very key influence on the election now it is so close.

  2
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  8:11AM

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Each to their own, but I personally don't see the attraction of such large tvs. They just completely dominate the room, even a large one.

  I have a huge living room, you could easily get 40 people in there.

  0
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  8:12AM

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Each to their own, but I personally don't see the attraction of such large tvs. They just completely dominate the room, even a large one.

  It pays for itself in not going to the pub to watch the football, the cricket, the rugby, the F1, the Olympics…
  
  At least that’s what I told my wife.

  0
• MattW Posts: 22,070

  8:15AM

  Sandpit said:

  biggles said:

  Sandpit said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  What I don’t understand is why their newish builds still appear to be built out of balsa wood. You’d think the economics would mean that Floridian homes would be hurricane resistant in the same way Japan is earthquake resistant.
  

  AIUI a lot of the new builds have a “safe room”, made of concrete and designed to survive a hurricane.
  
  There’s almost no construction method that can keep a whole house up in 180mph winds, at least not without exorbitant cost, so you might as well make them out of your traditional American timber construction and rebuild after the storm.
  
  https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/safe-rooms
  
  As noted above, there’s no ‘shelter in place’ order for this storm, it’s a full evacuation.

  It has to be a hole house in those circs.
  
  Good morning, everyone.

  0
• Selebian Posts: 8,457

  8:19AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Why do we still do TVs in inches?* I had to do the conversion: 2.1-2.5m
  
  Fine for films and sport, but what happens when you watch the news? I don't think I could have dealt with Boris Johnson or Liz Truss at that size in my living room
  
  *Or at least, let's move to feet and inches. I know I'm 184cm tall which is just over 6ft, but for inches I'd have to do the maths - no one when asked how tall they are says 72 inches!

  0
• LostPassword Posts: 17,605

  8:20AM

  moonshine said:

  Foxy said:

  No_Offence_Alan said:

  Fishing said:

  FPT
  
  

  WildernessPt2 said:

  JosiasJessop said:

  Sandpit said:

  Nigel_Foremain said:

  Cookie said:

  Stuartinromford said:

  rottenborough said:

  HYUFD said:

  Keir Starmer is now as unpopular as Nigel Farage
  
  Net favourability scores
  Nigel Farage: -35
  Keir Starmer: -36
  Rishi Sunak: -42
  
  Select cabinet ministers
  Angela Rayner: -25
  Rachel Reeves: -29
  Yvette Cooper: -16
  David Lammy: -19
  
  Tory leadership candidates
  
  James Cleverly -19
  Robert Jenrick -19
  Kemi Badenoch -27
  https://x.com/YouGov/status/1843622229977846072

  Voters hate everyone who goes near Westminster?
  
  

  The language here possibly a bit OTT for a politics prof, but he has a point, I reckon.
  
  The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people. You can't see a doctor, find a dentist, take a train or even get on a bus. Until that changes, we will just see rotation after rotation in our politics as voters search for an answer.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3l5yduaiwcm2p
  
  This pretty much sums up the mood in many of our focus groups, despair and anger that so much of the country feels broken.
  
  https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3l5ydvfy7yh2r
  
  It feels broken because a lot of it is broken, or at best extremely tatty. It's the logical endpoint of things we've voted for (with our wallets as well as our ballots) for decades, but we're not going to acknowledge that. But until we do, we will collectively keep looking for that One Weird Trick that They Don't Want Us To Know.
  
  Whatever the answer is, it ain't going to be easy or quick.

  It's nonsense though. Today I saw a doctor at the drop of a hat. Four weeks ago I needed emergency dental work which I was able to get, along with two follow up appointments. Oh, and I got the tram there without incident. My kids all go to totally acceptable state schools
  
  
  The story we are told is that nothing works. And indeed I listen to the story, and sometimes believing the story, I don't even try (to, for example, see a doctor). But when I'm forced to use the system, mostly, it works.
  I accept there are many examples of people for whom it doesn't. But the norm is a working system.

  Maybe the whingers should go and take a trip to eastern Ukraine or the middle east. They need to get a bit of perspective. "The truth is that everyday day life in Britain is utterly horrible for most people." What a piece of hyperbolic bollox. It is clearly a hard life being a mollycoddled Professor.

  Well quite. Try telling the recent arrivals from Ukraine and Hong Kong that the UK just doesn’t work, and they’ll tell you exactly what they think.

  We have lots of new arrivals from HK in our village. And I mean lots.
  
  A couple of anecdotes from some I have chatted to, with different aspects on integration.
  
  *) One is not sending their kid to the local secondary school, as the HK contingent of kids are getting a little cliquey, and he wants his kids to integrate more.
  
  *) Some are apparently mad-keen on gardening, even in the tiny gardens the new builds get. Because a) it is seen as something we Brits do; and b) because they did not really have access to gardens in HK.

  Hong Kong really was the best fusion of cultures in the modern world.

  ... and Hong Kongers really are the best immigrants. Already exposed to English culture, definitely political refugees not economic migrants, well educated and enterprising. They are significantly more productive per head than we are. It is also a massive humiliation for Communist China as well as a boost for us. We really should encourage more of them to come.
  
  I'd make it so any Hongkonger without a criminal record can come here on the strength of their ID card and get citizenship after a year and not five.

  Paddy Ashdown suggested that years ago, and was shouted down.

  Indeed it was Mrs Thatcher who denied the Hong Kongers the right to migrate here with her 1981 nationality act (Falkland Islanders too as I recall).

  What was the history on why Britain didn’t extend the lease over Hong Kong in the mid-late 20th C when chinas economy was on its knees?

  I think it was that the Chinese didn't recognise the Treaty for the lease as having any validity, so wouldn't have entertained any negotiation on extending it.

  1
• HYUFD Posts: 121,372

  8:20AM

  rottenborough said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  How Biden responds to this might well be a very key influence on the election now it is so close.

  Florida is going for Trump regardless

  0
• JosiasJessop Posts: 41,688

  8:20AM

  Sandpit said:

  biggles said:

  Sandpit said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  What I don’t understand is why their newish builds still appear to be built out of balsa wood. You’d think the economics would mean that Floridian homes would be hurricane resistant in the same way Japan is earthquake resistant.
  

  AIUI a lot of the new builds have a “safe room”, made of concrete and designed to survive a hurricane.
  
  There’s almost no construction method that can keep a whole house up in 180mph winds, at least not without exorbitant cost, so you might as well make them out of your traditional American timber construction and rebuild after the storm.
  
  https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/safe-rooms
  
  As noted above, there’s no ‘shelter in place’ order for this storm, it’s a full evacuation.

  Safe rooms must be quite difficult to arrange in low-lying areas when there's a storm surge.

  0
• Taz Posts: 13,780

  8:21AM edited 8:27AM

  Sandpit said:

  biggles said:

  Sandpit said:

  Casino_Royale said:

  That hurricane looks utterly horrific. About to wipe out a third of Florida.
  
  How on earth do you insure your property if you live there?

  The average Floridian home apparently costs $5,500 to insure, and I suspect there’s a number of coastal areas which are completely uninsurable for risks of flood and storm damage.
  
  https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/09/41082452/hurricane-helene-exposes-vulnerability-of-floridas-home-insurance-market
  
  They’re expecting around $10bn of payouts on this storm, to add to $6bn from the last one only a couple of weeks back.

  What I don’t understand is why their newish builds still appear to be built out of balsa wood. You’d think the economics would mean that Floridian homes would be hurricane resistant in the same way Japan is earthquake resistant.
  

  AIUI a lot of the new builds have a “safe room”, made of concrete and designed to survive a hurricane.
  
  There’s almost no construction method that can keep a whole house up in 180mph winds, at least not without exorbitant cost, so you might as well make them out of your traditional American timber construction and rebuild after the storm.
  
  https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/building-science/safe-rooms
  
  As noted above, there’s no ‘shelter in place’ order for this storm, it’s a full evacuation.

  Saw Mayor of Tampa interview on a Youtube channel last night. She was calm, rational, and clear. If people are told to evacuate and they don't then they will die.
  
  A most sobering message.

  1
• Sandpit Posts: 53,645

  8:22AM

  No century for Duckett, but a mighty fine innings nonetheless. 84 from 75 balls puts the visitors right back in the match.
  
  Harry brook taking over where Duckett left off though, already swinging boundaries.

  0
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  8:23AM

  Sandpit said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Each to their own, but I personally don't see the attraction of such large tvs. They just completely dominate the room, even a large one.

  It pays for itself in not going to the pub to watch the football, the cricket, the rugby, the F1, the Olympics…
  
  At least that’s what I told my wife.

  Plus the picture quality.
  
  4K OLED HDR at 120 refresh rate.
  
  It’s like the match is taking place in your living room.

  0
• FrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,594

  8:24AM edited 8:27AM

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Sandpit said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Each to their own, but I personally don't see the attraction of such large tvs. They just completely dominate the room, even a large one.

  It pays for itself in not going to the pub to watch the football, the cricket, the rugby, the F1, the Olympics…
  
  At least that’s what I told my wife.

  Plus the picture quality.
  
  4K OLED HDR at 120 refresh rate.
  
  It’s like the match is taking place in your living room.

  Have you seen the company who is installing those stadia like experiences in bars in the US? I believe they have plans for one in the UK.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMt2aQCrbRE

  1
• Morris_Dancer Posts: 61,573

  8:24AM

  The enormo-haddock like enormo-TVs too.

  1
• TheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,779

  8:24AM

  Selebian said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  FrancisUrquhart said:

  TheScreamingEagles said:

  Morris_Dancer said:

  Mr. Eagles, perhaps Klopp will interview Verstappen when he wins the title?

  Last month I bought a brand new TV (83 inches, not overcompensating), I will cry and hurl bricks at the TV if Klopp says nice things about the Dutch shunt.

  Only 83", didn't fancy one of those 100" jobbies.....

  I’ll get the 100 inch one when 8K becomes standard.

  Why do we still do TVs in inches?* I had to do the conversion: 2.1-2.5m
  
  Fine for films and sport, but what happens when you watch the news? I don't think I could have dealt with Boris Johnson or Liz Truss at that size in my living room
  
  *Or at least, let's move to feet and inches. I know I'm 184cm tall which is just over 6ft, but for inches I'd have to do the maths - no one when asked how tall they are says 72 inches!

  Yes, the standard unit of measurement is Wales.

  1