You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
vs
Who is more likely to put Labour in power? And do you seriously think the former is more qualified than the latter?
The 'kid' is making a fundamental mistake about the nature of a representative democracy, that his no doubt hero Churchill could put him straight upon.
The Referendum has no place within it.
But another one is going to be the only way out of this impasse if the Commons ends up as clogged as it was before it dissolved itself, and even then it's a big ask.
Spain has just had its fourth General Election in as many years - we are not 'special'.
Looks like Tories are readying their ground-breaking campaign with ... tax cuts (stealth tax increases).
Same old. Bet on a Tory get a Tory.
Why are people talking about fibre broadband in 10 years time? 6G will be around then and is clearly a much easier thing to offer everyone than putting fibres to every single house.
Spain has just had its fourth General Election in as many years – we are not ‘special’.
It is the failing of a system where one party has to get a majority rather than accept that people want different things and should be representated by many parties working together.
Why should I have to endure a Tory party because 40% of voters wanted one, likewise why should a Tory have to endure a Labour party. We need a combination of both who would by default be more centrist and they would have to work together and come to compromised policies.
Why are people talking about fibre broadband in 10 years time? 6G will be around then and is clearly a much easier thing to offer everyone than putting fibres to every single house.
I expect there will be an evolution of sorts. I don't think you can nail something down such as 6G that isn't quite tangible currently.
Trump is poorly educated, look at the brilliant foreign policy decisions he has made.
No, Trump had the best education money can buy. He's just dumb as a rock.
Looks like Tories are readying their ground-breaking campaign with … tax cuts
Libdems are offering a 1p income tax increase. Should be popular with a lot of people including me.
Why are people talking about fibre broadband in 10 years time? 6G will be around then and is clearly a much easier thing to offer everyone than putting fibres to every single house.
This.
Surely the last few years have proved the most damning indictment imaginable on the whole public school system.
We’re all in this mess as a direct result of the spawn of the most expensive education money can buy
Being able to pepper your statements with Latin doesn’t really make up for driving a countries economy off a cliff, does it?
6G might be around but probably so will gigabit fibre. Probably using the same cables we have now I'd guess. Gigabit fibre is possible now using the same FTTP tech I think. In a decade it could be multi-gigabit.
Why are people talking about fibre broadband in 10 years time? 6G will be around then and is clearly a much easier thing to offer everyone than putting fibres to every single house
Because the British have a penchant for ridiculously overpriced boondoggles that are obsolescent or have serious flaws upon introduction. See NHS IT systems, Eurofighter Typhoon, various rail projects, the Type 45 destroyers.
6G might be around but probably so will gigabit fibre.
Yep, but what is easier to install to every house? And what is easier to keep up to date as new faster technology arrives?
Yep, but what is easier to install to every house?
There'll be a mix. I don't think that Labour's policy is a concrete plan to specifically put fibre to every single farmhouse. Obviously, if it ever gets put into operation there'll be a plan that'll reveal it's more effective to put in 6 3/4 G in to remote cottages than to run fibre.
You lot keep getting quite worked up over hypotheticals.
Cables are 90 odd% of the time better than wireless. Renationalising companies however is something that is taking a dark path of forced sale and not effective. If we had kept BT nationalised in the 80s and reformed it then yes it could work but we have taken a different path and trying to jump the company back to that model would be damaging to BT / open reach and the country's image as a whole. After Brexit the last thing we need is to make the country look even more politically unstable.
1p on income tax? Sounds fine if it is across the board. More stable tax take, raises more money than adding more tax on "top earners"*, less of the it's other responsibility to pay for xyz.
*To achieve a good extra amount of money from top earners a significant tax increase is needed on them and quite a few people who may be doing well but are not some sort of company owning mega rich get caught fueling a us and them mentality. Of course that's what some people want to achieve..
Why do you think 6G will be either easier or cheaper than installing fibre? And which version of it have you been looking at that doesn’t rely on fibre already being in place up to a certain point? And why can’t we catch up with other countries and get fast stable connections to people ASAP? And will this amazing 6G really get to “everybody” or just major cities (and then only to those prepared and able to pay through the nose for it)?
I heard two Brexit gammon idiots (sorry but I was outnumbered) talking about the 'cost' of this and what it will do to the poor pensioner's pension funds this morning.
I pointed out to them they will probably benefit in lots of tangible ways not least by the fact that BT's share price had more than halved in the last two years ... Hardly a support for a market economy is it?
I suppose the fact that Angela Rayner grew up in a very troubled environment and still rose to top is immaterial. She’s just a bit thick isn’t she cos she didn’t get straight As in her GCSEs despite having a kid at 16?
Tosh
I know nothing about her background at all, in this context it doesn't matter. She is thick as she doesn't know the very basic facts relating to the policy that she is promoting. For a campaigning politician, that is simply not good enough.
Don't forget, everyone campaigning for election is going through a public interview for an £79k p/a job. If you were recruiting at work for that post, would you appoint someone who knew so little about their core subject matter?
Well she knows plenty about what Sure Start centres can do. Many of our politicians have no experience of the lives of people born further down the economic pecking order. Not sure she’s PM material either, but I wouldn’t rule her out of other roles just because she didn’t get through school. I have a relative that was heavily involved at Stockport College, which she attended, and giving people a second chance at further education is exactly what it aims to do.
What do you no?
I know/no how to get a sneaky edit in when I spot my own typo!
Probably the only time using authority is justified. Positive discrimination works. When you have had centuries of ingrained institutional and cultural bias, it won’t change by accident, it has to be forced.
Only it never is the only time.
30 years after East Germans were allowed to leave ... after decades of what they could and couldn't say and do because it all turned out they had to be forced.
The irony being the reason the BXP took so many Labour votes is because many feel like they are being forced to accept things rather than being involved and convinced. It's ironic because the BXP only has to listen without calling them racist, homophobic or anything except nationalist
It's even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy.... but many are simply sick of the special pleading and refusal to discuss real issues or concerns (many of which are actually false, others just exaggerated) ... because instead they are shut out of debate.
It astounds me that Labour haven't elected a female leader yet... but telling the people sick of being given choices set by political agenda won't make them feel included. (and that includes many women and ethnic groups)
Do we care about last night's local election results? Low turnout/local issues but I wondered if there was anything we could infer. Rhos seemed particularly interesting.
but many are simply sick of the special pleading and refusal to discuss real issues or concerns
Ahh… you’re one of those.
Well done for not using the phrase “political correctness”.
Rhos seemed particularly interesting.
Perhaps the armchair psephologists might think again about the deal that the remain parties have made with each other only benefiting the LibDems.
1p on income tax? Sounds fine if it is across the board. More stable tax take, raises more money than adding more tax on “top earners”*, less of the it’s other responsibility to pay for xyz.
*To achieve a good extra amount of money from top earners a significant tax increase is needed on them and quite a few people who may be doing well but are not some sort of company owning mega rich get caught fueling a us and them mentality. Of course that’s what some people want to achieve..
They said it's across the board [1] and I like it for the all the same reasons as you do. Plus if they tax PAYE wage slaves like me they may actually collect some revenue because I can't easily dodge it. If it doesn't collect much revenue (possible since people on the LC threads claim the revenue curve is flat-ish for income tax) they can just drop it back.
[1] Mind you I can't find any written source for any of this.
Spain has just had its fourth General Election in as many years – we are not ‘special’.
We're not even world class when it comes to being chaotic and totally rubbish.
They said it’s across the board
Hopefully accompanied by a decent hike in tax-free allowance
Anyone listening/reading Johnson on radio 5?
I'm trying to read it, but it's just such utter bullshit, and it should be obviously such to anyone with more than a couple of Brain Cells to rub together,
what better way to be sure that your world view is the correct one than have someone more like yourself in a position of power?
Well I'm pretty sure that someone who actually knows and has experienced what people at the bottom have to put up with would be better placed to run the country than someone who puts his **** into a dead pigs head to impress his mates at an upper class party.
And yeah, I am more like Rayner than Boris and very proud of it. Obviously the main thing you miss out on by not going to public school is the lesson in knowing your place.
Worth remembering that pig head story was made up by the same team that brought you Brexit, as part of their aim of transforming the Tory party for their own purposes.
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy
Wait, what?
State run ISP?
What could possibly go wrong...
Hopefully accompanied by a decent hike in tax-free allowance
Dunno, I expect (but don't know) that a decent hike in tax-free allowance would hit revenue so if they are proposing that it *could* be a mistake.
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy
Err, you sure about that? As I seem to remember that immigrants are a huge net contributor to the economy. I guess it could be that 5% contribute enough to make up for 95% who don't but I can't see that myself.
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants who actually contribute positively to the economy
I’m going to give the benefit of doubt here and suggest this statement is simply missing a punctuation mark ( or 2 )
It reads very different when inserted
It’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants.
Who actually contribute positively to the economy.
I think that was the point… he was saying that immigration is not “out of control” and that immigrants are a net benefit… but also saying that those who have been saying this, rather than “listening” to those who think and say otherwise, are the real problem. We’ve heard that argument many times before… “these people are wrong and prejudiced but how dare politicians say they are, or do anything to counter the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia in our country… it makes them look out of touch”.
Politicians have been “listening” to those blaming immigrants forever… it’s just that some (most now?) will use that experience to try and win the votes of those that think that way, and some (few now?) will try and change their minds.
> insert red “controls on immigration” mug img here <
Labour wont get a majority so this is all a bit irrelevant
or not.......
Ed Milibands commie energy price cap became law
Labours minimum wage is now touted by the Tories
Banning private schools, has led to serious proposals about revoking charity status
Renationalisation of public services is not as daft as it sounds, especially when things like water bills are mostly now paying off the debt the investment firms ran up to buy the franchise
even in opposition labour can effect some change, admittedly we have to put up with grinding Tory austerity & a the divisive poison of Johnsons hard brexit
Ahh… you’re one of those.
Well done for not using the phrase “political correctness”.
I don't know if I am .... but I know plenty who are. It most certainly wouldn't make me vote for Farage... (and my OH is an immigrant)
It really doesn't matter what it's called though or if their complaint is actually true if the matter can't be discussed then it can never be resolved.
Do you remember that woman of Asian decent and her kid being told "this is England speak English"? The one in Wales where she was speaking Welsh? What I am saying is IMHO how we could possibly get to that.
Do you remember the another one? The woman who apparently was forced to remove her pottery pigs from her window-sill? I don't know if this was even actually TRUE.... but you know what, it doesn't matter because a whole load of people were keen to insist she was racist.
.. and guess who won? The trash papers getting per click/comment revenue.
There also was that whole 2015 inclusiveness report (albeit commissioned by Tory's) but with findings supported by Chuka Umunna that got buried because it was "racist".
and ... FFS Corbyn is being accused of racism (under a guise of calling it anti-semetism)
Ed Milibands commie energy price cap became law
T'was a stupid idea then, it's a stupid idea now.
Labours minimum wage is now touted by the Tories
T'was a good idea then, it's a good idea now. I was deffo an opponent of the minimum wage back in the day, if it have been explained me that without a minimum wage we were we actually subsidising jobs with in work benefits (and importing labour to do the fake jobs) I'd have had a very different view on it.
I’m going to give the benefit of doubt here and suggest this statement is simply missing a punctuation mark ( or 2 )
It reads very different when insertedIt’s even more ironic because we have a very small percentage of immigrants.
Who actually contribute positively to the economy.
Seems pretty obvious to me that's what he meant.
if the matter can’t be discussed
If by “can’t be discussed” you mean “dominate public debate, the media and our politics in general”, then carry on.
lunge
Err, you sure about that? As I seem to remember that immigrants are a huge net contributor to the economy. I guess it could be that 5% contribute enough to make up for 95% who don’t but I can’t see that myself.
I have no ideas what percent... nor do I give a monkey's.
I'm simply stating the overall percentage is actually very low and that of those here the overwhelming contribution both financially (easy to prove) and culturally (harder to prove) is positive.
The whole Faragist (is that a new word) immigrant that comes and steals your job whilst claiming your benefits and claiming for their 15 kids elsewhere is a tri-oxymoron (a new word where any 2 of 3 things are an oxymoron) ..
However some immigrants (like anyone else) do not contribute positively to either... or some may (like everyone else) be both positive and negative.
Fundamentally WE ARE ALL HUMANS ... PEOPLE .... and trying to make out that everyone is good/bad is beyond pointless BUT what it does do is split a load of HUMANS one way or another...
kelvin
If by “can’t be discussed” you mean “dominate public debate, the media and our politics in general”, then carry on.
It's not being discussed ("as in what's good and bad about" ) it's being debated like some US debating team ....
Most voters engage in or with discussion rather than philosophical debates where one side is simply trying to prove their point and win a debate.
Kelvin - that’s not what’s happening though is it?
There’s plenty being said on the positive benefits of immigration - access to skills and capacity that’s required for our economy to grow and deliver the services we need.
What’s also being said is that this needs to be done in a controlled way, not just for the benefit of people who are already here (including recent migrants) but also for those that have yet to come.
Given the unavoidable lead time in building infrastructure (housing, school buildings, hospitals) that in many cases have 5-10 year delivery times, and the need to recruit and train the additional staff to run them (4-7 years to train a teacher to competency, 8-15 years for specialist medics) etc etc, uncontrolled immigration just creates problems all round - which is why every country in the world has some form of control.
By contrast, Corbyn has committed to:
- easing freedom of movement further
- extending the automatic right for family members to join
- creating new automatic entitlements to very costly public services e.g. healthcare..
...And then branding anyone who can see the challenges this would create as racist.
If you take a good walk round most cities in Europe (including the U.K.) there are now serious issues with homelessness, worker exploitation and people living in poverty.
Accelerating the flow of people will simply make this worse - we MUST start to get ahead of these problems and we cannot do that if continue with the flow of 4-500k people (or more) entering the country each year, often with little or no notice and in many cases having immediate automatic entitlement to public services irrespective of whether they will every make a contribution to the running of those services.
To do this simply guarantees that poverty will increase for everyone and societal problems will continue to get worse - often impacting those that are already disadvantaged far more than it impacts the chattering classes.
Accelerating the flow of people will simply make this worse
Wait a minute there. That does not follow at all.
Who wants to come to the UK? Vagrants and benefit seekers? Homeless? Not really.
Most immigrants come to work or are refugees. The former pay for themselves (and grow our economy thereby icreasing the amount of money available for homeless), the latter we need to help regardless.
Most of the homeless I see in Cardiff are white and by the sound of it local. Not a scientific survey, I appreciate.
As someone who pays £25 a month for an internet connection which constantly drops out and delivers speeds which can't power a video stream this broadband thing is massive, and I'm not exactly in the middle of nowhere. I doubt I'm the only one. I wonder if when they put in the national grid and water/sewerage system people worried about how it was going to be paid for? Of course they didn't, because it was obviously required. This is no different, and will be a game changer.
There’s plenty being said on the positive benefits of immigration – access to skills and capacity that’s required for our economy to grow and deliver the services we need.
What’s also being said is that this needs to be done in a controlled way, not just for the benefit of people who are already here (including recent migrants) but also for those that have yet to come.
Given the unavoidable lead time in building infrastructure (housing, school buildings, hospitals) that in many cases have 5-10 year delivery times, and the need to recruit and train the additional staff to run them (4-7 years to train a teacher to competency, 8-15 years for specialist medics) etc etc, uncontrolled immigration just creates problems all round – which is why every country in the world has some form of control.
By contrast, Corbyn has committed to:
– easing freedom of movement further
– extending the automatic right for family members to join
– creating new automatic entitlements to very costly public services e.g. healthcare..
....and all of this at a time when we have a housing crisis.
Corbyn committed to building 500,000 houses a year (I think Torys are promising 300,000 a year & the NPPF is allowing the planning permission for that number, and more).
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building (which is one of the few economic activities that can't be outsourced abroad) to grow the GDP. GDP, not GDP per capita. It's a massive ponzi-scheme & it's turning the vast areas of the country into conurbations.
Scotland has net immigration of a mere 21,000 in a space 3/5ths the size of England which due to a nice low birthrate leaves net population increase of just ~13,300. Would that be so bad in the rest of the Uk?
The former pay for themselves
In one sense they pay for themselves and bring advantages of all kinds. What they don't do is bring 1.5 acres of new land in per person.
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building (which is one of the few economic activities that can’t be outsourced abroad) to grow the GDP. GDP, not GDP per capita. It’s a massive ponzi-scheme & it’s turning the vast areas of the country into conurbations.
Scotland has net immigration of a mere 21,000 in a space 3/5ths the size of England which due to a nice low birthrate leaves net population increase of just ~13,300. Would that be so bad in the rest of the Uk?
but you are missing out or demographic problems
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
1.5 acres of new land in per person
Have I created 3 acres by having two kids? How odd.
Corbyn committed to building 500,000 houses a year (I think Torys are promising 300,000 a year & the NPPF is allowing the planning permission for that number, and more).
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building (which is one of the few economic activities that can’t be outsourced abroad) to grow the GDP. GDP, not GDP per capita. It’s a massive ponzi-scheme & it’s turning the vast areas of the country into conurbations.
Correction, it's not HOUSES it's housing... essentially slum housing
but you are missing out or demographic problems
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
Using young healthy tax paying immigrants just shifts the problem away a few years, it doesn't solve it. One day immigration will stop and that problem will have to be managed. So we might as well manage it now. Like all ponzi schemes it will stop one day, better to stop it sooner.
but you are missing out or demographic problems
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
You understand what a ponzi scheme is right ?
I shouted loudly about that at the time @CaptainFlashheart … Labour under both Miliband and Corbyn have done their fair share of trying to ride the anti-immigrant wave. Only this week I pointed out that McClusky and others within the Labour movement are still at it. Labour are far from immune to trying this approach.
You understand what a ponzi scheme is right ?
Not this Ponzi scheme bullshit again. I can’t be bothered… just go and read all the migration related parts of the EU thread, rather than repeating all that nonsense again here, please.
Corbyn committed to building 500,000 houses a year
Correction, it’s not HOUSES it’s housing… essentially slum housing
Indeed.
The drawback of a party that harvests votes from the underdog is that to win it has create underdogs in freshly made sink estates.
The advantage of a party that harvests votes from successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society is that to win it has to create more successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society.
Have I created 3 acres by having two kids? How odd.
No, but you and your wife will die and free up 3 acres for them. Now, if you've been irresponsible and had three I'd be asking where the 1.5 acres you owe us are!
If you'd had one or zero the Green party would (quite rightly) give you a medal.
We have 3 acres?!?
And suddenly we’re equating “successful” with home owners only?
We have 3 acres?!?
Yeah, you have three acres of land somewhere dedicated to you! It's not all in one place and it moves around, but it's there. (Rain forest was cut down to provide some of it.)
Plus the bit you live on.
You also take up a bit of space, I dunno, a couple of metres square, say.
...and if you're standing on a hill top or a beach alone, nobody else can stand on that beach or hilltop alone.
Selfish bastard!
you have three acres of land somewhere dedicated to you!
Go on… where is it?
Does anyone have hundreds of thousands of acres currently, rather than just their 3?
The drawback of a party that harvests votes from the underdog is that to win it has create underdogs in freshly made sink estates.
The advantage of a party that harvests votes from successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society is that to win it has to create more successful working people with a bricks and mortar stake in society.
The numbers don't back that up too well do they. And don't assume that all successful working people are all selfish tory tossers. Some of us realise we have just been lucky and still care about the underdogs...
It's telling that BT's shares haven't moved on news that Labour intends to nationalise it.
Thats how certain the markets are that its not something that's ever going to happen
Both parties want to increase the population so they can have a massive program of building
What, that's the only reason? FFS
The drawback of a party that harvests votes from the underdog is that to win it has create underdogs in freshly made sink estates.
Jesus. Seriously - what the hell? Why do you assume that they'll create sink estates? Lessons have been learned from the 60s. Other countries have done both social and high density private housing very well (I've lived in it).
You really need to calm down and think rationally about all of this, preferably from an apolitical standpoint.
Why do you assume that they’ll create sink estates?
Walk around any new estate. 20pc of those properties will be rented "affordable" housing. Guess which houses are the ones with the garden looking a state and with a sofa dumped on the front lawn and guess which ones are pretty well looked after.
All other things being equal would you think that, on average, a car that had been a hirecar would be a better bet as a second hand buy than a car that had been owned privately?
So I conclude, on average, people who own their houses look after their houses and the surrounding area better than people who rent. Certainly when I rented/bought I followed that pattern.
That's been my experience YMMV.
Not this Ponzi scheme bullshit again. I can’t be bothered… just go and read all the migration related parts of the EU thread, rather than repeating all that nonsense again here, please.
It's nothing to do with the EU or immigrants.... Kimbers was asking
with an ageing population how do you cope without young healthy tax paying immigrants?
It's a ponzi scheme.... how we cope is immaterial. It has nothing to do with anything other than raking in money from victims and/or raking in political capitol.
Our council core dev plan identified we need 2/3 bed homes... our council are pushing through 1100
new slum flats, in 8x 10 story slums, mostly studio high rise (of which we have hundreds empty) in a area of bungalows... along side 8 other high rise projects (and have already exceeded their quota) ... with <5% affordable... and all to an impassioned plea from our council leader about kids sleeping rough this Christmas
Walk around any new estate.
1) I live on a new estate. There are rental homes, there are professionals, it's a mix. I've got a 12 year old Passat, my neighbour has a 2 year old BMW 650d.
2) There are bad estates, but estates don't have to be bad. Like I said - it works in other countries because they do it right.
3) What are you even proposing? Not building houses at all?
EDIT
new slum flats, in 8x 10 story slums, mostly studio high rise
Again - blocks of flats don't have to be slums.
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk's housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
Estates of semis can end up quite down at heal, not that any of this is forms a useful discussion really.
robdixon claims
If you take a good walk round most cities in Europe (including the U.K.) there are now serious issues with homelessness, worker exploitation and people living in poverty.
Accelerating the flow of people will simply make this worse
I'm sorry Rob but your comment is comes across as a terrible generalisation and is completely erroneous. Go and spend some time with homeless people and immigration is not the problem. Ending all immigration will never end homelessness in any shape or form.
Again – blocks of flats don’t have to be slums.
No and I've lived in flats elsewhere and city centres but they have been planned and needed.
However
"new slum flats, in 8x10 story slums, mostly studio high rise"
Our council already WAY exceeded it's quota anyway but what we NEED is 2/3 bedroom houses not studio flats outside of town overlooking (actually wrapped around) a 10,000 seater football stadium that today has a scout hut, snooker club and community facilities (and a private gym they are relocating).
The stated goal of the CEO is to turn Woking (pop 100,000) into Singapore...so this is just one of many high rise towers. The council earn almost double per sq. m in infrastructure levy by locating these tower blocks outside the town centre... it is in direct contravention to their dev plan and allocation and doesn't meet the affordable housing goals by 50% or required housing by 90%...(and quite honestly, how many families want to live overlooking a 10,000 seater stadium)
Its miles from the town centre and public transport isn't a viable* option because of the river, railway and canal....(unless someone pays for new bridges etc. which the favoured (only developer to submit) is exempted from)
In fact far from learning from errors in the past this is pretty much a mirror of the 60's tower blocks I was brought up in and around...and this is located between two of the areas where we won the award for most violent crime places to live in Surrey according the the police statistics. (I appreciate that's not the highest bar but ....)
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk’s housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
Partly ... but only partly.
It's also HOW we do it....
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk’s housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
Perhaps, maybe it's circumstantial. Apartment blocks are common in Europe for sure, and they aren't all slums. Why this would be isn't clear to me.
I've lived in Finland and Germany, both times in what would be considered grim blocks of flats here. But they were working as designed - full of private tenants or owners of all ages and social standing.
In Finland, most of the suburbs are apartment blocks - but this is because there was a mass exodus from the countryside to the city after WWII when huge areas of the country were burned to the ground - it had been a mostly rural population. So massive housing projects were needed, they were built, and people lived in them. Full of families and professionals and all.
In Germany (Munich) the stock seemed mostly to be blocks of flats or nice bespoke houses. So it seems to me that the apartment building is in lieu of our 'modern housing estate' and is correspondingly populated. I know less about the situation there though.
I do occasionally wonder if the Uk’s housing crisis is related to the expectation of having an actual house as opposed to apartment (especially in built up areas), the norm for our mainland neighbors.
I thought it was mainly due to the vast sums of money the select few are making out of being legally allowed to manipulate the housing market. Aided of course by those making the rules and setting policy who just so happen to profit from the situation as well.
Anyone still doubt the institutional bias at the heart of the media? The broadcast communists at the BBC clearly don't understand irony.
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/1195327302806233088?s=20
Not this Ponzi scheme bullshit again. I can’t be bothered… v
dismissing demographic problems & immigration as a ponzi scheme is a good way of not addressing the issue in any way
its like shouting 'project fear' when you hear anything negative you want to ignore
I didn't hear about this until today but apparently Tories are promising to start reversing Beeching cuts. A massive undertaking (as it's been discussed before many times) but interesting. I doubt he'd ever do it though but it's a nice thought.
dismissing demographic problems & immigration as a ponzi scheme is a good way of not addressing the issue in any way
I'm dismissing a proposed solution as a ponzi scheme on the basis it doesn't solve the problem, just enlarge it and pass it on to the next generation.
...as it happens I don't see any way of addressing it beyond technology and automation [1]. China must have had this problem on steroids, what did they do?
[1] Although a voice in me is chanting Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run, Logan's Run.
ONe thing I'm still not understanding is that tehe conserviatives are getting trashed in locals, but then we have this just now:
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 30% (-)
LDEM: 15% (-)
BREX: 5% (-3)
GRN: 2% (-1)
I know people say that people vote differtently in locals to GEs but I cant quite wrap my head round such a disparity.
Recent locals:
St Mary's (Powys) result:
Labour GAIN from Conservative.
Goodrington with Roselands (Torbay) result:
Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat.
Culverden (Tunbridge Wells) result:
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
Shap (Eden) result:
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.
Dunfermline East (Fife) first preferences:
SNP GAIN from Conservative.
Rosyth (Fife) first preferences:
SNP HOLD.
Rhos (Neath Port Talbot) result:
Plaid Cymru GAIN from Labour.
I find the polls/results utterly unfathomable. ...and maybe it doesn't matter because we have no idea how votes relate to seats.
In other news I had to chuckle that JC's image features on less than 10 percent of Labour’s election leaflets and nearly half of the Conservative's. 😀
I know people say that people vote differtently in locals to GEs but I cant quite wrap my head round such a disparity.
Because in local elections people vote on local issues and Labour vs Tory. But in Westminster it's Corbyn vs Johnson. A Labour vote in a local election doesn't get you Corbyn as PM.
On the other hand, the pollsters might be messing it up.
Ooo… fun game Dazh…
street lights ‘Communism’?