Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
Why is that, beyond us choosing to use inferior traditional methods and materials? We can put man on the moon, surely we can design roof tiles with a lifespan of more than 50 years?
I think of all the potential tax rises, fuel duty is one the government can get away with. It hasn't gone up for ages and retail prices are down significantly in the past few months. As long as the oil price doesn't spike, the general public won't remember it in a years time.
Most of those sound like demands I would studiously ignore, as they are basically descriptive and the offence is imo performative in some cases. I like the added amusing grunting from Toby Young.
Though I came across an interesting one in the wild, yesterday. An international, mainly I think Usonian, audience, getting cross about the the use of the phrase "Dumb Waiter" to describe a food lift/food prep area:
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
Yes my own introduction to this kind of garbage came very early.
When I was at school, there was a (permanently jolly) black dinner lady who often wore a golliwog apron which even then the p.c. movement was trying to ban as offensive.
She obviously didn't know that she was supposed to have died, or at least fainted, from the offense it caused her.
For that matter I've never met a non-white person who cares if white people wear black makeup at fancy dress parties, nor do I know non-Europeans who care if Europeans wear their traditional dress occasionally.
It's all a bizarre manifestation of liberal white guilt and would be ridiculous if it weren't so widespread amongst idiots in power.
I think you’ll find that they just place it as a trivial thing compared to being stopped for Driving A Nice Car While Black. All the time.
Certainly one way of making your tax rises very visible. Don't have very high milage myself but this feels like an area the London based Labour leadership may have a blindspot on which would cause an awful lot of noise and aggrevation relative to the tax generated, x-ref WFA.
Donald Trump's support does skew stupid, particularly in the MAGA ranks, you'd need to be a bit stupid yourself not to detect this. However large numbers of people who are not at all stupid will be voting for him. He'd have no chance if this weren't the case. Why is it the case? Because he's the GOP candidate. Much of his vote will come from people who always vote Republican.
The Venn diagram of "people who always vote Republican" regardless of who the candidate is and "stupid" is very nearly a perfect circle
Well, no, because they could just be preferring Republican type values and policies on things like tax and abortion. It's not my sort of politics but "stupid" isn't the word for it.
Trump's coalition (with some overlap) is Always-GOP plus the MAGA Cult plus a chunk of all those voters (many millions) who don't pay that much attention to politics.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
What amuses me is that I know a girl who wore a "never kissed a Tory" t-shirt who unwittingly definitely kissed a Tory ;-)
Mwhahahaha.
When I was at university I was seeing a girl whose grandfather was a Labour PM. She was rabidly anti right wing public school chaps (despite being from a v privileged background herself) and she used to hate that she liked me and kept sleeping with me.
It still makes me laugh how many times she would finish with me the next morning and criticise my background then rinse and repeat a few days later.
My favourites are the loud strident feminists who, secretly, want to be spanked and tied up. Luckily, I am willing to do that
...are you aware you said that out loud rather than just thought it?...
Er.... yeah? Mainly because it is interestingly true, but also because it is funny
Ok, if this is even just an exagerrated version of events Elon does for once have a point here.
Elon Musk tonight on overregulation:
"I got a bunch of nutty stories. SpaceX had to do this study to see if Starship would hit a shark. And I'm like... it's a big ocean. There are a lot of sharks! It’s not impossible, but it’s very unlikely. So we said, 'Fine, we’ll do the analysis. Can you give us the shark data?' They were like, 'No, we can’t give you the shark data.'
Well, then, okay, we’re in a bit of a quandary. How do we solve this shark probability issue? They said, 'Well, we could give it to our western division, but we don’t trust them.' I’m like, 'Am I in a comedy sketch here?!'
Eventually, we got the data and could run the analysis to say, 'Yeah, the sharks are going to be fine.' But they wouldn’t let us proceed with the launch until we did this crazy shark analysis.
Then we thought, 'Okay, now we’re done.' But then they said, 'What about whales?'
When you look at a picture of the Pacific, what percent of the surface area do you see as whale? If Starship did hit a whale, honestly, it’s like the whale had it coming, cause the odds are... so low. It’s like Final Destination: Whale Edition.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Not recording theft under $500 and drug dealing has no impact on the statistic for violent crime whatsoever.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
The 5p reduction in fuel duty is explicitly temporary. Holding it flat is also supposed to be temporary. The fiscal projections from before the election for future years assume that fuel duty will go back to increasing with inflation.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I agree with you particularly on the last point particularly. I think the left should do what the modern right does- make an emotional appeal that brings as many different people together as possible, and *then* bring in the practicalities. I also think Starmer has had an uneven start partly because some of his staff have tried to put the cart before the horse, on this - grim circumspection before emotional appeals.
For me personally the story of Corbyn is quite a complex one, partly because I think Rayner and Miliband would have pushed him further towards pragmatism in office, and also because his own history, that had sometimes been quite naively sectarian, undermined his emotional appeal and calmer temperament.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
One of the major drivers of Trump doing well is certainly crime.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
There’s an awful lot of voter churn at this election, as both parties have tried appealing to certain demographics in ways that have alienated others at the same time. Some groups are focusing on economic issues, and others on social issues compared to 2020.
I still think it’s too close to call in many of the swing States, although the crap polling that keeps telling us it’s definitely 50/50 or 51/49 in either direction, isn’t helping much.
Today is the final day for voter registration in Pennsylvania, likely to be the deciding State. Both sides’ national campaigns have been attending numerous events there over the weekend.
Do you have any polling showing churn (vs 2020 vote)? My understanding was that most voters when it comes to US presidential elections are set in their ways.
On the phone at the moment but will reply later. My point was rather no-one is changing their mind in the last fortnight, but have changed their mind a lot in the past four years. There’s plenty of polling suggesting women moving Dem and men moving Rep, for example, driven by social issues.
Ok, if this is even just an exagerrated version of events Elon does for once have a point here.
Elon Musk tonight on overregulation:
"I got a bunch of nutty stories. SpaceX had to do this study to see if Starship would hit a shark. And I'm like... it's a big ocean. There are a lot of sharks! It’s not impossible, but it’s very unlikely. So we said, 'Fine, we’ll do the analysis. Can you give us the shark data?' They were like, 'No, we can’t give you the shark data.'
Well, then, okay, we’re in a bit of a quandary. How do we solve this shark probability issue? They said, 'Well, we could give it to our western division, but we don’t trust them.' I’m like, 'Am I in a comedy sketch here?!'
Eventually, we got the data and could run the analysis to say, 'Yeah, the sharks are going to be fine.' But they wouldn’t let us proceed with the launch until we did this crazy shark analysis.
Then we thought, 'Okay, now we’re done.' But then they said, 'What about whales?'
When you look at a picture of the Pacific, what percent of the surface area do you see as whale? If Starship did hit a whale, honestly, it’s like the whale had it coming, cause the odds are... so low. It’s like Final Destination: Whale Edition.
Trump and Elon certainly have a thing about the sharks.
Having known people doing stuff in the US, that story is simply typical - it oscillates between no regulation and absurd multi agency comedies.
A funny one was a chap in Texas, who had a pond form on his land. A state agency demanded he drain it as a threat to public health, under severe penalties. A federal agency demanded he didn’t touch it (as wetlands) under severe penalties….
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
Its almost always taking offence on behalf of others (who are not offended).
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
One of the major drivers of Trump doing well is certainly crime.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
One of the major drivers of Trump doing well is certainly crime.
I think what benefits Trump more than "rising crime" is the rising sense of lawlessness, which is a real thing
During the BLM riots, cities really WERE trashed, and the police really did turn a blind eye, and the media claimed it was all "largely peaceful", and Americans could see with their own eyes that was all lies
Likewise you only have to drive through Americn downtowns to see the homeless and the Fent addicts and the decay. It's unfair to blame all or even most of that on Biden, or evem the Dems (it has been building for many years for many reasons), nonetheless it has gravely worsened under Biden (partly coz Covid) so he and Harris are getting the blame and Trump promises to fix it
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
In 6 or 16 years you will look back, and think - why did I do/not do that !
When we added ours in 2015, mum was living here with me as carer, and the price came off the estate subject to inheritance tax.
I guess you need to think about comfort, what happens if electricity prices skyrocket (which happens sometimes ), the value of your house, the tax your estate will pay on the money you haven't spent (if any), and a bundle of other things.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
One of the major drivers of Trump doing well is certainly crime.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
Why is that, beyond us choosing to use inferior traditional methods and materials? We can put man on the moon, surely we can design roof tiles with a lifespan of more than 50 years?
The tiles will generally last forever (for slates or well-made roofing tiles). The problem is the rest of the system; roofing felt, nails (if applicable) mortar on ridges, flashing etc, and the connections between them.
A relative had to get some work done on his roof after just five years. It was nothing to do with the construction; but birds were pecking the mortar out from beneath the ridge tiles. Once water starts to get in, the entire system can start degrading relatively rapidly.
I mentioned that Conservatives had kept fuel duty low in the run up to the election. One of those things that the Gov't won't get credit for doing but will kick up an almighty fuss when it goes up. I for one appreciated the effort - but the Labour vote is structurally lower in car usage than the Tories at similar vote %s so I suppose it makes sense for Labour to hike.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
The 5p reduction in fuel duty is explicitly temporary. Holding it flat is also supposed to be temporary. The fiscal projections from before the election for future years assume that fuel duty will go back to increasing with inflation.
Really hard to see undoing that as a priority, especially when Reeves can say it was Hunt's policy.
Fuel Duty was Gordon Brown at his finest, having the increases built in make future years’ numbers look a lot better, even if the increases never happen because it’s politically difficult at each Budget.
It’s also been said a million times before, that nothing else in the economy feeds inflation like increasing fuel prices does, and it doesn’t take many index-linked bonds or base rate cuts forgone, before the amount raised in tax pales into insignificance compared to the costs of inflation and interest rates both to the public sector and the economy in general.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
And that is a decent argument for having a maximum voting age as well as a minimum voting age. Put it at the age when remaining life expectancy drops below 18 years.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
One of the major drivers of Trump doing well is certainly crime.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The 5p reduction in fuel duty is explicitly temporary. Holding it flat is also supposed to be temporary. The fiscal projections from before the election for future years assume that fuel duty will go back to increasing with inflation.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
And that is a decent argument for having a maximum voting age as well as a minimum voting age. Put it at the age when remaining life expectancy drops below 18 years.
That's 66 for men and 69 for women.
Do you want to personalise this? If someone doesn't smoke, drinks little, has good blood pressure, no cancer in the family, do they get to vote for longer? When I vote, instead of having to just prove my identity, will I have to show the stamps I've collected for gym attendance?
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
The old Soviet bloc was "more equal". But there wasn't much evidence it was "happier and healthier". People kept trying to escape it.
My preference would be to be personally better off – if this comes at the expense of some rich person being even more better off that is something I am entirely happy to live with.
But I accept this is a basic difference of principle between you and me.
The 5p reduction in fuel duty is explicitly temporary. Holding it flat is also supposed to be temporary. The fiscal projections from before the election for future years assume that fuel duty will go back to increasing with inflation.
Really hard to see undoing that as a priority, especially when Reeves can say it was Hunt's policy.
Fuel Duty was Gordon Brown at his finest, having the increases built in make future years’ numbers look a lot better, even if the increases never happen because it’s politically difficult at each Budget.
It’s also been said a million times before, that nothing else in the economy feeds inflation like increasing fuel prices does, and it doesn’t take many index-linked bonds or base rate cuts forgone, before the amount raised in tax pales into insignificance compared to the costs of inflation and interest rates both to the public sector and the economy in general.
There is at least one thing that feeds inflation more than fuel prices: the Versailles treaty.
The 5p reduction in fuel duty is explicitly temporary. Holding it flat is also supposed to be temporary. The fiscal projections from before the election for future years assume that fuel duty will go back to increasing with inflation.
Donald Trump's support does skew stupid, particularly in the MAGA ranks, you'd need to be a bit stupid yourself not to detect this. However large numbers of people who are not at all stupid will be voting for him. He'd have no chance if this weren't the case. Why is it the case? Because he's the GOP candidate. Much of his vote will come from people who always vote Republican.
The Venn diagram of "people who always vote Republican" regardless of who the candidate is and "stupid" is very nearly a perfect circle
I think your understanding of US politics is deficient.
To a UK centrist, what US voters should care about is abortion, abortion, abortion.
The modern left often isn't selling an emotive story of we can make you all happier, healthier and more equal, though. To me that would be an optomistic and emotional-material appeal. Some of the less confrontational in Corbyn's camp offered this, whereas others were more confrontational, and I would also say this was close to the Bernie Sanders platform.
I think.Kamala Harris, in her personality, is a good candidate, but the Democrats' broader current platform seems to be.a mixture of defensive - save democracy, and save standards - and appeals to demographic groups who are already in the bag. She needs to widen things dramatically, in the last couple of weeks.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
Why is that, beyond us choosing to use inferior traditional methods and materials? We can put man on the moon, surely we can design roof tiles with a lifespan of more than 50 years?
The tiles will generally last forever (for slates or well-made roofing tiles). The problem is the rest of the system; roofing felt, nails (if applicable) mortar on ridges, flashing etc, and the connections between them.
A relative had to get some work done on his roof after just five years. It was nothing to do with the construction; but birds were pecking the mortar out from beneath the ridge tiles. Once water starts to get in, the entire system can start degrading relatively rapidly.
You can have a roof with a lifespan of more than 50 years.
There was a house in the States, from the 1930s, where the roof was done in sheets of aluminium. Folded gores (edges joined by folding together multiple times to form ridges). Original roof, IIRC, untouched.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
And that is a decent argument for having a maximum voting age as well as a minimum voting age. Put it at the age when remaining life expectancy drops below 18 years.
That's 66 for men and 69 for women.
I don't know what I've done to merit disenfranchisement in nine years time.
The modern left often isn't selling an emotive story of we can make you all happier, healthier and more equal, though. To me that would be an optomistic and emotional-material appeal. Some of the less confrontational in Corbyn's camp offered this, whereas others were more confrontational, and I would also say this was close to the Bernie Sanders platform.
I think.Kamala Harris, in her personality, is a good candidate, but the Democrats' broader current platform seems to be.a mixture of defensive - save democracy, and save standards - and appeals to demographic groups who are already in the bag. She needs to widen things dramatically, in the last couple of weeks.
It often
The problem from both sides is lack of big ideas that survive impact with reality. Neither left or right seem to have a coherent plan for the way the modern world is that doesn't involve repeat what was tried in the past under a new label.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
Why is that, beyond us choosing to use inferior traditional methods and materials? We can put man on the moon, surely we can design roof tiles with a lifespan of more than 50 years?
It's also to do with costs and trades, and a modicum of knowledge. To have it done with lead is a very expensive material, and you need an expensive tradesman.
And also the life time you need for it. Why would you want to spend an extra 20% or 50% to create a feature in a house that will require no maintenance for the 50 years beyond the time that you could possibly be living there? Why would you want a roof with a lifespan of 100 years on a house with a design life of 50 years?
It also depends on environment. In Scotland a roof will have full sarking boards (wooden covering under the tiles) with a waterproof membrane on top; in England there will be no sarking and the membrane will be draped across so as to form channels for the water to run down under the tiles. That is because Scotland is dominated by howling gales as well as Howling Gaels.
There is also I think a rule where roofs in Scotland are fixed down, rather than held down essentially by their own weight.
My roof was new in 2008, and it is already ready for work on the mortar. That was a fail by the self-builder. Probably just got a too weak ratio in the mix.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
One of the major drivers of Trump doing well is certainly crime.
This is apart from the many manipulate-the-system crimes of Mr Trump and Mr Musk?
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
And that is a decent argument for having a maximum voting age as well as a minimum voting age. Put it at the age when remaining life expectancy drops below 18 years.
That's 66 for men and 69 for women.
Do you want to personalise this? If someone doesn't smoke, drinks little, has good blood pressure, no cancer in the family, do they get to vote for longer? When I vote, instead of having to just prove my identity, will I have to show the stamps I've collected for gym attendance?
Not really.
I think there's a serious point about the way the ageing population is creating an electorate less likely to accept short term sacrifice in return for a later payoff.
Since I think that's one of the more fundamental reasons for Britain's deteriorating condition over the last several decades, we should do some serious thinking about how to encourage longer term thinking.
One other factor that will have a similar impact is the increasing number of people with no children. Why worry about other people's children and grandchildren having to pay the national debt in the future, when you have none of your own to consider?
My more serious suggestion is that everyone should have the vote, with no exception, and to have legal guardians cast a proxy vote for those who aren't deemed capable (children, the insane).
Currently having a lovely glimpse into the near future, arguing with an AI chatbot that has got stuck in a loop, before finally finally getting it to transfer me to speak to the one human doing the job and now in a big queue.....
OTOH the bargirl has just made one of the best dry martinis I’ve ever had
Its looks a bit Muji for £1400 a night.
It’s a weird mix of intensely sophisticated and actually a tiny bit naff and pretentious
Also no gym no pool no nothing. It a ryokan. A tiny boutique trad hotel
I don’t see what justifies that £1400 price tag apart from its globally unique location in an old merchants house right in the middle of Gion in Kyoto which is like st marks square in the Japanese Venice
So maybe I do see what justifies it
They are sending me to lots of nice places. Apparently that place where u had the incredible wagyu (also over £1000 a night) is known for serving some of the best Japanese food IN JAPAN
Basically if I was paying for this trip it would probably top out at £20,000 for 13 days - possibly more
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
The old Soviet bloc was "more equal". But there wasn't much evidence it was "happier and healthier". People kept trying to escape it.
My preference would be to be personally better off – if this comes at the expense of some rich person being even more better off that is something I am entirely happy to live with.
But I accept this is a basic difference of principle between you and me.
Hey I've got no objection to you getting better off. And there's a massive territory between the two failed experiments of Soviet Communism and NeoLiberal Trickledown for us to aim at. Indeed we're in it really. Just some tinkering needed. So, you know, let's get tinkering.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Which is bizarre because Trump is a one-man white collar crime wave on his own.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
Personally I think life is a lot better for most people in the West than it used to be, but we have a tendency to look on the dark side. I don't understand why the elderly tend to be more right-wing - I don't feel the slightest urge to vote Tory or further right at age 74, and would cheerfully vote for higher taxes to finance more foreign aid. I do feel a sneaking sense of indifference - I'd be sorry to think that the human race died out in 100 years, but to some extent feel that younger generations can choose how they want to live. The exception is that the dice are clearly still very much loaded to people in countries that are relatively wealthy and at peace.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
Kinnock was on R4 Today this morning. He has his father's technique of avoiding answering by rapid and sustained volubility, which he does very well.
Astonishingly, and I think mistakenly, he refused to answer at all this question: 'Will all our medical records be accessible to 1.5 million people who work in the NHS.'
It was amazing that he could not just say "No". But he didn't. Nor anything approaching it.
What was he hiding?
IMO that's a simplistic question.
What should he have said?
Records will be governed by rules and principles around need-to-access.
We already see that in the police - for example the officer who was disciplined for looking up the home address of a woman he wanted to date.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
Feeling nostalgic for the days when you were convinced Trump wouldn't be the nominee. Fifteen days to go and you've been worn down to, "A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are."
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
The old Soviet bloc was "more equal". But there wasn't much evidence it was "happier and healthier". People kept trying to escape it.
My preference would be to be personally better off – if this comes at the expense of some rich person being even more better off that is something I am entirely happy to live with.
But I accept this is a basic difference of principle between you and me.
Hey I've got no objection to you getting better off. And there's a massive territory between the two failed experiments of Soviet Communism and NeoLiberal Trickledown for us to aim at. Indeed we're in it really. Just some tinkering needed. So, you know, let's get tinkering.
Let's get Scandinavian, with some Mediterranean cultural warmth.
The Scandinavians also seem to have much less of the slightly odd, ultra-puritanism of American attitudes to sexuality, which are beginning to affect us quite strongjy now, but also simultaneously have better actual representation of genders in work, and things like maternity rights.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Every so often I think that something or other in my house needs replacing or something needs adding. Last time it was solar panels. Then the salesman said that I should see a return in 5 years and I thought...... at 86 can I wait that long?
And that is a decent argument for having a maximum voting age as well as a minimum voting age. Put it at the age when remaining life expectancy drops below 18 years.
That's 66 for men and 69 for women.
I don't know what I've done to merit disenfranchisement in nine years time.
Yep. I would have lost my vote nearly 4 years ago under that plan, yet I am fit and healthy and plan to put in another 25 years if my Dad is anything to go by. A lot happens in 25 years.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
Statistics is not done at the desk, it is done in the streets. The rise of data analysis software and languages in the 00/10s have led to the rise of data analysts who only ever analyse databases and have to be literally thumped to cross-reference it with real-life data. This is a real problem and I'm quite disturbed by it. I have anecdotes.
Well, no, because they could just be preferring Republican type values and policies on things like tax and abortion. It's not my sort of politics but "stupid" isn't the word for it.
Trump's coalition (with some overlap) is Always-GOP plus the MAGA Cult plus a chunk of all those voters (many millions) who don't pay that much attention to politics.
"Always-GOP" is stupid
"My guy, right or wrong" is stupid
I am not disputing that there are voters who prefer Republican values, but the guy currently running on the GOP ticket doesn't hold them
Voting for Trump cos he wears a Red tie is by any and all definitions, stupid.
What my erstwhile boss would call "fucking retarded"
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
Statistics is not done at the desk, it is done in the streets. The rise of data analysis software and languages in the 00/10s have led to the rise of data analysts who only ever analyse databases and have to be literally thumped to cross-reference it with real-life data. This is a real problem and I'm quite disturbed by it. I have anecdotes.
This reminds me of what Varoufakis to tell audiences when he was flavour du jour enough a few years ago to be able to tour almost any European university he wanted to.
"I have six Economics textbooks here, one from a Nobel laureate. Time is not a variable in it. Is that Science ?"
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
Statistics is not done at the desk, it is done in the streets. The rise of data analysis software and languages in the 00/10s have led to the rise of data analysts who only ever analyse databases and have to be literally thumped to cross-reference it with real-life data. This is a real problem and I'm quite disturbed by it. I have anecdotes.
The bonus point for misleading statistics goes to the politicians suggesting reduced inflation means that life is getting better - when it actually means it’s still getting worse just more slowly than before.
Incumbents everywhere have been trying to run the same lines over the past year or two, and it sounds really terrible and tin-eared to an audience who are most definitely not feeling better off than they were a few years ago.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
Statistics is not done at the desk, it is done in the streets. The rise of data analysis software and languages in the 00/10s have led to the rise of data analysts who only ever analyse databases and have to be literally thumped to cross-reference it with real-life data. This is a real problem and I'm quite disturbed by it. I have anecdotes.
The bonus point for misleading statistics goes to the politicians suggesting reduced inflation as meaning life is getting better - when it actually means it’s still getting worse just more slowly than before.
Incumbents everywhere have been trying to run the same lines over the past year or two, and it sounds really terrible and tin-eared to an audience who are most definitely not feeling better off than they were a few years ago.
But that's misleading too. As long as wages and/or welfare payments are increasing faster than prices, inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Indeed it's an important lubricant for the economy.
OTOH the bargirl has just made one of the best dry martinis I’ve ever had
Its looks a bit Muji for £1400 a night.
They are sending me to lots of nice places. Apparently that place where u had the incredible wagyu (also over £1000 a night) is known for serving some of the best Japanese food IN JAPAN
The best Japanese food I've had has mostly been outside Japan tbf. Sydney, Auckland, Queenstown basin. Same dedication to quality ingredients and attention to detail, but with less of the stuff that will always be too weird for my Western palate, however open I may be to it, and less of the stuff that people think they should like but is disappointing when you actually concentrate on the texture and flavour (classic example = pufferfish, had it 3 ways in Shinmonzen Yonemura very close to where you're staying, left me completely unmoved).
Interesting trip for me today, now I’ve got over the crap seat on the Eurostar and awful Pret coffee this morning. I’m at the OECD in Paris. First time I’ve been.
It has the sort of vibe you’d expect at a big multilateral organisation. A mixture of old and new buildings, bright young things fresh from the top international graduate schools and here to bolster their already shining CVs chatting in the corridors in accented English, delegates from exotic countries invited to come observe - I had Cayman Islands in front of me in the lunch queue and Egypt milling around in the garden with Eagle lapel badges.
Despite the globalist atmosphere the catering is defiantly French. A decent steak haché and a chocolate tart for lunch in the OECD canteen, with a bit of baguette on the side. Though no wine.
All in all about as non-Trumpy as it gets.
I am here to discuss how to facilitate digital nomadism and working from anywhere in the global tax system.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
Why is that, beyond us choosing to use inferior traditional methods and materials? We can put man on the moon, surely we can design roof tiles with a lifespan of more than 50 years?
The tiles will generally last forever (for slates or well-made roofing tiles). The problem is the rest of the system; roofing felt, nails (if applicable) mortar on ridges, flashing etc, and the connections between them.
A relative had to get some work done on his roof after just five years. It was nothing to do with the construction; but birds were pecking the mortar out from beneath the ridge tiles. Once water starts to get in, the entire system can start degrading relatively rapidly.
Get a good roofer and try a dry ridge system ?
The second part of that being easier than the first.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
Hillary Clinton won 3 million more votes than Trump so I'm not sure we can blame sexist voters.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.
The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.
If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag. I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
If Kamala loses it will be because she's a shit candidate who owes her position almost solely to being a non-white woman because Dem party ideology now says that if the nominee is a white man then the veep nominee has to be a non-white woman. And there are precious few of those and those that there are aren't terribly high on the list of potentially election winning politicians. So yes, it will be because of racism and sexism. But not for the reasons you're saying.
A fellow firearms officer known as DS87 said he would have taken a shot if Blake had not, and another identified by the cypher E156 said he was “fractions of a second” away from doing the same.
Another, NX109, got the finger of his glove caught in the Audi’s door handle and just managed to wrench it free as it moved forward, telling the jury he thought he would be dragged between it and a Tesla parked nearby.
"Mr Webb said he had been “amazed” by politicians who demonstrated a worrying lack of knowledge of the industry they were steering.
" “In my roles I’ve come across various MPs who for example believe oil was found in big lakes underneath the North Sea,” he added. " “How did people get in charge of this industry, or exercise authority on this industry, with such little knowledge of it?”"
There's an editorial by him, also, in the P&J but unfortunately that's not online. He says the only chancellors who actually "got" oil and gas were Lawson, Darling and Osborne. They probably are the three smartest people to have held the post in the last 40 years so that sounds about right.
Osborne - the CoE who collapsed N Sea revenues by £10+ billion in the run-up to Sindy? I suppose that indicates knowledge if not appreciation of value.
If I add up all the free trips I’ve had in my life, I’ve probably had between £2-£3m of free holidays
That’s insane. But true
I can envisage a pair of AI Bots chewing the fat in 2074 and one says 'remember the days when humans used to do our job?' and the other says 'humans? before my time'.
Rayner is expected to reduce right-to-buy discounts that offer council tenants up to 70 per cent off purchase prices, capped at £102,400, or £136,400 in London. Discounts are expected to be set closer to about 25 per cent. Rayner is likely to restrict the right to buy to people who have lived in their home for ten years, up from three, and she is considering scrapping it for newly-built homes.
Rayner is expected to reduce right-to-buy discounts that offer council tenants up to 70 per cent off purchase prices, capped at £102,400, or £136,400 in London. Discounts are expected to be set closer to about 25 per cent. Rayner is likely to restrict the right to buy to people who have lived in their home for ten years, up from three, and she is considering scrapping it for newly-built homes.
Interesting trip for me today, now I’ve got over the crap seat on the Eurostar and awful Pret coffee this morning. I’m at the OECD in Paris. First time I’ve been.
It has the sort of vibe you’d expect at a big multilateral organisation. A mixture of old and new buildings, bright young things fresh from the top international graduate schools and here to bolster their already shining CVs chatting in the corridors in accented English, delegates from exotic countries invited to come observe - I had Cayman Islands in front of me in the lunch queue and Egypt milling around in the garden with Eagle lapel badges.
Despite the globalist atmosphere the catering is defiantly French. A decent steak haché and a chocolate tart for lunch in the OECD canteen, with a bit of baguette on the side. Though no wine.
All in all about as non-Trumpy as it gets.
I am here to discuss how to facilitate digital nomadism and working from anywhere in the global tax system.
That all sounded very French until you said no wine.
Surely half the point of digital nomadism, is that it’s always wine o’clock somewhere?
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
Personally I think life is a lot better for most people in the West than it used to be, but we have a tendency to look on the dark side. I don't understand why the elderly tend to be more right-wing - I don't feel the slightest urge to vote Tory or further right at age 74, and would cheerfully vote for higher taxes to finance more foreign aid. I do feel a sneaking sense of indifference - I'd be sorry to think that the human race died out in 100 years, but to some extent feel that younger generations can choose how they want to live. The exception is that the dice are clearly still very much loaded to people in countries that are relatively wealthy and at peace.
Interesting trip for me today, now I’ve got over the crap seat on the Eurostar and awful Pret coffee this morning. I’m at the OECD in Paris. First time I’ve been.
It has the sort of vibe you’d expect at a big multilateral organisation. A mixture of old and new buildings, bright young things fresh from the top international graduate schools and here to bolster their already shining CVs chatting in the corridors in accented English, delegates from exotic countries invited to come observe - I had Cayman Islands in front of me in the lunch queue and Egypt milling around in the garden with Eagle lapel badges.
Despite the globalist atmosphere the catering is defiantly French. A decent steak haché and a chocolate tart for lunch in the OECD canteen, with a bit of baguette on the side. Though no wine.
All in all about as non-Trumpy as it gets.
I am here to discuss how to facilitate digital nomadism and working from anywhere in the global tax system.
That all sounded very French until you said no wine.
Surely half the point of digital nomadism, is that it’s always wine o’clock somewhere?
It was beer o clock for one tourist at the St Pancras terminal at 6.45am this morning.
Interesting trip for me today, now I’ve got over the crap seat on the Eurostar and awful Pret coffee this morning. I’m at the OECD in Paris. First time I’ve been.
It has the sort of vibe you’d expect at a big multilateral organisation. A mixture of old and new buildings, bright young things fresh from the top international graduate schools and here to bolster their already shining CVs chatting in the corridors in accented English, delegates from exotic countries invited to come observe - I had Cayman Islands in front of me in the lunch queue and Egypt milling around in the garden with Eagle lapel badges.
Despite the globalist atmosphere the catering is defiantly French. A decent steak haché and a chocolate tart for lunch in the OECD canteen, with a bit of baguette on the side. Though no wine.
All in all about as non-Trumpy as it gets.
I am here to discuss how to facilitate digital nomadism and working from anywhere in the global tax system.
Tell everyone you voted Leave and you hope Trump wins and then report back here later how it went.
Interesting trip for me today, now I’ve got over the crap seat on the Eurostar and awful Pret coffee this morning. I’m at the OECD in Paris. First time I’ve been.
It has the sort of vibe you’d expect at a big multilateral organisation. A mixture of old and new buildings, bright young things fresh from the top international graduate schools and here to bolster their already shining CVs chatting in the corridors in accented English, delegates from exotic countries invited to come observe - I had Cayman Islands in front of me in the lunch queue and Egypt milling around in the garden with Eagle lapel badges.
Despite the globalist atmosphere the catering is defiantly French. A decent steak haché and a chocolate tart for lunch in the OECD canteen, with a bit of baguette on the side. Though no wine.
All in all about as non-Trumpy as it gets.
I am here to discuss how to facilitate digital nomadism and working from anywhere in the global tax system.
Tell everyone you voted Leave and you hope Trump wins and then report back here later how it went.
Rayner is expected to reduce right-to-buy discounts that offer council tenants up to 70 per cent off purchase prices, capped at £102,400, or £136,400 in London. Discounts are expected to be set closer to about 25 per cent. Rayner is likely to restrict the right to buy to people who have lived in their home for ten years, up from three, and she is considering scrapping it for newly-built homes.
Comments
https://youtu.be/u1a4NV-VoFM?si=t_0faVN1OLCnAnSB
Trump's coalition (with some overlap) is Always-GOP plus the MAGA Cult plus a chunk of all those voters (many millions) who don't pay that much attention to politics.
As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.
Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.
It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.
Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.
No.
If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.
It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
The 5p reduction in fuel duty is explicitly temporary. Holding it flat is also supposed to be temporary. The fiscal projections from before the election for future years assume that fuel duty will go back to increasing with inflation.
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/fuel-duties/
Really hard to see undoing that as a priority, especially when Reeves can say it was Hunt's policy.
and *then* bring in the practicalities. I also think Starmer has had an uneven start partly because some of his staff have tried to put the cart before the horse, on this - grim circumspection before emotional appeals.
For me personally the story of Corbyn is quite a complex one, partly because I think Rayner and Miliband would have pushed him further towards pragmatism in office, and also because his own history, that had sometimes been quite naively sectarian, undermined his emotional appeal and calmer temperament.
A funny one was a chap in Texas, who had a pond form on his land. A state agency demanded he drain it as a threat to public health, under severe penalties. A federal agency demanded he didn’t touch it (as wetlands) under severe penalties….
During the BLM riots, cities really WERE trashed, and the police really did turn a blind eye, and the media claimed it was all "largely peaceful", and Americans could see with their own eyes that was all lies
Likewise you only have to drive through Americn downtowns to see the homeless and the Fent addicts and the decay. It's unfair to blame all or even most of that on Biden, or evem the Dems (it has been building for many years for many reasons), nonetheless it has gravely worsened under Biden (partly coz Covid) so he and Harris are getting the blame and Trump promises to fix it
When we added ours in 2015, mum was living here with me as carer, and the price came off the estate subject to inheritance tax.
I guess you need to think about comfort, what happens if electricity prices skyrocket (which happens sometimes
A relative had to get some work done on his roof after just five years. It was nothing to do with the construction; but birds were pecking the mortar out from beneath the ridge tiles. Once water starts to get in, the entire system can start degrading relatively rapidly.
I for one appreciated the effort - but the Labour vote is structurally lower in car usage than the Tories at similar vote %s so I suppose it makes sense for Labour to hike.
It’s also been said a million times before, that nothing else in the economy feeds inflation like increasing fuel prices does, and it doesn’t take many index-linked bonds or base rate cuts forgone, before the amount raised in tax pales into insignificance compared to the costs of inflation and interest rates both to the public sector and the economy in general.
That's 66 for men and 69 for women.
My preference would be to be personally better off – if this comes at the expense of some rich person being even more better off that is something I am entirely happy to live with.
But I accept this is a basic difference of principle between you and me.
To a UK centrist, what US voters should care about is abortion, abortion, abortion.
But, that's not how US voters see matters.
I think.Kamala Harris, in her personality, is a good candidate, but the Democrats' broader current platform seems to be.a mixture of defensive - save democracy, and save standards - and appeals to demographic groups who are already in the bag. She needs to widen things dramatically, in the last couple of weeks.
It often
There was a house in the States, from the 1930s, where the roof was done in sheets of aluminium. Folded gores (edges joined by folding together multiple times to form ridges). Original roof, IIRC, untouched.
Good luck getting that through planning, though.
And "optomistically" sounds like your optometrist ; "optimistically", that should have been, obviously.
You do get free rice crackers tho. And some pleasant soft biscuits
Still. £1400. And this is in a cheap country
https://sowaka.com/
OTOH the bargirl has just made one of the best dry martinis I’ve ever had
And also the life time you need for it. Why would you want to spend an extra 20% or 50% to create a feature in a house that will require no maintenance for the 50 years beyond the time that you could possibly be living there? Why would you want a roof with a lifespan of 100 years on a house with a design life of 50 years?
It also depends on environment. In Scotland a roof will have full sarking boards (wooden covering under the tiles) with a waterproof membrane on top; in England there will be no sarking and the membrane will be draped across so as to form channels for the water to run down under the tiles. That is because Scotland is dominated by howling gales as well as Howling Gaels.
There is also I think a rule where roofs in Scotland are fixed down, rather than held down essentially by their own weight.
My roof was new in 2008, and it is already ready for work on the mortar. That was a fail by the self-builder. Probably just got a too weak ratio in the mix.
I think there's a serious point about the way the ageing population is creating an electorate less likely to accept short term sacrifice in return for a later payoff.
Since I think that's one of the more fundamental reasons for Britain's deteriorating condition over the last several decades, we should do some serious thinking about how to encourage longer term thinking.
One other factor that will have a similar impact is the increasing number of people with no children. Why worry about other people's children and grandchildren having to pay the national debt in the future, when you have none of your own to consider?
My more serious suggestion is that everyone should have the vote, with no exception, and to have legal guardians cast a proxy vote for those who aren't deemed capable (children, the insane).
Also no gym no pool no nothing. It a ryokan. A tiny boutique trad hotel
I don’t see what justifies that £1400 price tag apart from its globally unique location in an old merchants house right in the middle of Gion in Kyoto which is like st marks square in the Japanese Venice
So maybe I do see what justifies it
They are sending me to lots of nice places. Apparently that place where u had the incredible wagyu (also over £1000 a night) is known for serving some of the best Japanese food IN JAPAN
Basically if I was paying for this trip it would probably top out at £20,000 for 13 days - possibly more
If I add up all the free trips I’ve had in my life, I’ve probably had between £2-£3m of free holidays
That’s insane. But true
What should he have said?
Records will be governed by rules and principles around need-to-access.
We already see that in the police - for example the officer who was disciplined for looking up the home address of a woman he wanted to date.
Ouch.
Still, count me out. Is there a campsite?
Hopefully it will continue moving in that direction!
The Scandinavians also seem to have much less of the slightly odd, ultra-puritanism of American attitudes to sexuality, which are beginning to affect us quite strongjy now, but also simultaneously have better actual representation of genders in work, and things like maternity rights.
"My guy, right or wrong" is stupid
I am not disputing that there are voters who prefer Republican values, but the guy currently running on the GOP ticket doesn't hold them
Voting for Trump cos he wears a Red tie is by any and all definitions, stupid.
What my erstwhile boss would call "fucking retarded"
Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.
I paid about £200 a night in early November '23 for a nice corner room at The Cross Hotel, great location. Seems like a bargain looking back.
"I have six Economics textbooks here, one from a Nobel laureate. Time is not a variable in it. Is that Science ?"
Incumbents everywhere have been trying to run the same lines over the past year or two, and it sounds really terrible and tin-eared to an audience who are most definitely not feeling better off than they were a few years ago.
A good reason to keep your vote secret.
Indeed it's an important lubricant for the economy.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jury-retires-in-trial-of-police-marksman-over-fatal-shooting-of-chris-kaba/ar-AA1sDUXa?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d299824b7071497094c1f3df98b5cb3d&ei=31
It has the sort of vibe you’d expect at a big multilateral organisation. A mixture of old and new buildings, bright young things fresh from the top international graduate schools and here to bolster their already shining CVs chatting in the corridors in accented English, delegates from exotic countries invited to come observe - I had Cayman Islands in front of me in the lunch queue and Egypt milling around in the garden with Eagle lapel badges.
Despite the globalist atmosphere the catering is defiantly French. A decent steak haché and a chocolate tart for lunch in the OECD canteen, with a bit of baguette on the side. Though no wine.
All in all about as non-Trumpy as it gets.
I am here to discuss how to facilitate digital nomadism and working from anywhere in the global tax system.
The second part of that being easier than the first.
So yes, it will be because of racism and sexism. But not for the reasons you're saying.
Another, NX109, got the finger of his glove caught in the Audi’s door handle and just managed to wrench it free as it moved forward, telling the jury he thought he would be dragged between it and a Tesla parked nearby.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/rachel-reeves-council-houses-7fdbt0pkv
The market for fake women is almost certainly going to be dominated by a similar demographic in the near future though.
Surely half the point of digital nomadism, is that it’s always wine o’clock somewhere?