24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[steve]

Multimillionaire middle aged teetotal man married to a billionaire identifies Brexit bonuses as lower prices for beers in pubs and sanitary towels.

Which would be nice if it was true , but it isn't.

[leftieliberal]

May 19, 2023 9:58:56 GMT Mr Poppy said:

May 19, 2023 8:05:11 GMT colin said:

Starmer says he will build houses on Green Belt.

Sunak says he won't.

The Fabian Society/YouGov find that 63% of under 25's support building affordable homes on Green Belt.

Starmer wins.

If the under 25's vote in the GE.

Building the 'wrong houses (expensive 3bed+ brick semis/detached) in the wrong place (green belt) lost CON a lot of councillors in recent LEs. We need more housing but it needs to be the right houses (genuinely affordable) in the right places (not green belt). There is also the NIMBY factor. Folks want housing but not near them - which becomes a problem if your HMG and Local Council (but not if you can blame one/both of the HMG/LA - as LAB/LDEM can.. for now). Polling - worth clicking on the link and checking the age x-breaks, which are a bit surprising for 'das yoof' I have to say (plurality of 18-24s are DK)

We not only need 'starter homes' for first-time buyers but we also need smaller houses for the elderly to downsize into (as the idea of multiple generations of a family living in the same house seems to be unacceptable) and these need to be near where they lived before so they don't lose their social contacts.

[leftieliberal]

Great tweet from HIGNIFY

[steve]

@jimjam

"Hard to see them getting over 25 seats at the GE and more likely nearer 20 imo."

I may be a tad partisan on this but I genuinely think double that is entirely possible given the toxicity of the Tories and the reluctance of one nation Tories to vote labour.

Before the locals holding the significant gains from 2019 it was estimated that holding the existing seats would have been a reasonable performance 500 gains exceeded any ones expectations.

[Deleted]

I occasionally check the 10-year gilt yield rate to see how things now compare to how they were in the days of 'peak Truss' (4.643%), and all the consequent fallout from that. For the first time since then, it's back above 4% again. 

www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmbmkgb-10y?countrycode=bx

[Deleted]

May 19, 2023 8:58:34 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 19, 2023 8:05:11 GMT colin said:

Starmer says he will build houses on Green Belt.

Sunak says he won't.

The Fabian Society/YouGov find that 63% of under 25's support building affordable homes on Green Belt.

Starmer wins.

If the under 25's vote in the GE.

The Economist had an interesting take on that recently. The polling they had done suggested that in 'leafy' constituencies 37% of people support more housing being built and 39% oppose it. The magazine's argument was that if Labour go into an election promising to build houses and the Conservative, Lib Dems and Greens oppose that, then Labour get the 37% as a block but the 39% splinters between the Nimby parties - result a win for Labour. The parallel they draw is with how the Conservatives concentrated the pro-Brexit vote in 2019, while the pro-Remain vote splintered.

I'm not sure I entirely buy that idea - people's votes are obviously determined by more factors than housing - but it is an interesting notion. 
 

I was more interested in the picture of the young demographic who are so vocal about the effect of climate change on " The Planet" , being relaxed about concreting more of it over.

But then the whole Climate Change protest has no right connecting itself to Environmental Conservation. It is a protest about the constraints on humanity to pursue its chosen lifestyle and grab more and more  Natural Habitat to house its increasing numbers.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2023 9:53:35 GMT Mr Poppy said:

May 12, 2023 14:15:21 GMT colin said:

Goldman Sachs recently had a somewhat more pessimistic view:-


www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gas-prices-in-europe-may-treble-warns-goldman-sachs-dmfc55wz0

Even CI show an increasing trend again after Q2 2023.

Do you think there is any upside for Tory VI in this-just a year ahead of a GE ?

I discussed GS view with c-a-r-f-r-e-w . Given gas futures prices have already dropped massively then the 'risk' is skewed to the upside (which you can see in option prices - not that I'm going to explain those in any length*). 

Futures prices which show the 'seasonality' (ie prices rise over Winter) but also show prices falling into middle of decade. 
www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/TGM23/futures-prices

For VI then there is a high correlation of 'feel good/bad' factor so as inflation falls later this year then it would be reasonable (ceteris paribus) to expect CON VI to benefit from that - notably as LAB are trying to personally blame Rishi and CON for high inflation. What goes around, comes around... so I expect Rishi and CON will claim they are responsible for falling inflation, return to real wage growth etc, into 2024. 

Of course there might be other 'events' and the 'brand damage' of Boris and the Truss error will likely limit the upside for CON VI. 

* Simply put the prices are more likely to 'double' than to 'halve' (ie more likely to be >€100 this coming Winter than drop to <€30 from current low 50s)

Honestly-I think Con VI is not going to respond in that way now. I think Time For A Change is the prime mover.

Though a blessed change on Johnsonian Boosterism, I think the brief window of opportunity for  Sunak's quiet managerialism has closed .

[neilj]

Latest yougov, no great change, the Labour lead seems to have settled to what it was at the end if March, much of the recent Sunak bounce has unwound

[neilj]

Usual yoyo from Omnisis, last week Labour increased their lead by 6, this week its reduced by 5

[johntel]

May 19, 2023 9:08:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

May 19, 2023 9:03:57 GMT Danny said:

Except that the original statement says AI will replace exsiting IT systems.

Well it might wind up being both. Martin Sorrell was in the Times the other day saying how AI would replace people in call centres and going on to talk about the impact in advertising…

“AI will help advertising businesses with hyper-personalisation, Sorrell said, so marketers could target work more effectively: “We’re seeing it have an impact on media planning and buying in the digital area — those decisions can be reduced to algorithms. It is a super tool for our people who are starting to use it to improve their productivity. Finally, we’re seeing a significant impact on reducing the time to produce copy and visuals.””

The problem is that the AI bots just want to do interesting and well paid white-collar jobs rather than what would actually be useful to me - mundane stuff like cleaning the toilets, decorating, cutting the grass etc. 

I suspect the AI hype will go the same way as the 'robots will mean nobody needs to work' and 'robots will take over the world' hype. 

[jimjam]

Colin,

I have raised before the local Green voter who is really only concerned with their local environment.

They may share vague notions of saving the planet but not the expeditious net zero aspirations of Green politicians; typically they are former Tory voters at least in local elections in Darlington.

Young people may argue that in supporting new home building the net impact on the environment is positive as they should be designed to new standards of energy efficiency and made more sustainable in general.

Perhaps how these new homes being built can achieve this and how national regulations can require/encourage is something Labour need to explain?

Maybe solar panels means a council tax discount or a credit for the builder of some sort for example.

I will raise within the party as I think it is a fair challenge.

[befuddledbadger]

As someone who eschews the salivating hype that so often disfigures discussions on this site, I'm a little concerned about terms like "concreting over the planet" being used in the context of Starmer's proposed plans to liberalise existing planning laws to allow building on very restricted parts of existing green belt. I gather too that the proposal allows for quite a lot of local consultation and will be limited to green belt areas that are already thought to be uncontroversial in terms of development.

I don't expect to see residential tower blocks appearing on the banks of Wastwater any time soon, even in the dystopian wasteland that Starmer and his egalitarian warriors have in store for us.

[jimjam]

Neil.

It is interesting how some pollsters just publish their results sans narrative due to moe while others try to link an apparent but not actual movement to some event or other.

[pjw1961]

May 19, 2023 12:19:56 GMT colin said:

May 19, 2023 8:58:34 GMT pjw1961 said:

The Economist had an interesting take on that recently. The polling they had done suggested that in 'leafy' constituencies 37% of people support more housing being built and 39% oppose it. The magazine's argument was that if Labour go into an election promising to build houses and the Conservative, Lib Dems and Greens oppose that, then Labour get the 37% as a block but the 39% splinters between the Nimby parties - result a win for Labour. The parallel they draw is with how the Conservatives concentrated the pro-Brexit vote in 2019, while the pro-Remain vote splintered.

I'm not sure I entirely buy that idea - people's votes are obviously determined by more factors than housing - but it is an interesting notion. 
 

I was more interested in the picture of the young demographic who are so vocal about the effect of climate change on " The Planet" , being relaxed about concreting more of it over.

But then the whole Climate Change protest has no right connecting itself to Environmental Conservation. It is a protest about the constraints on humanity to pursue its chosen lifestyle and grab more and more  Natural Habitat to house its increasing numbers.

I'm don't see that young people wanting to have a roof over their head is hypocrisy, especially as part of the housing crisis is caused by elderly single person property owners occupying huge family homes and declining to release them to be used for their intended purpose.

The biggest environmental impact of a new house is not where it is built but how it is built, of what materials and whether it is energy efficient. A major effect of not building on the green belt isn't that more houses get built on brown field land; rather it is that vast housing estates are plonked on agricultural land in places like Braintree that are not green belt. So natural habitats - much richer ones than a lot of the London green belt - still get concreted over, just in somewhere where rich suburbanites don't have to see it happening.

[jimjam]

All political parties and the public, quite rightly imo, support building on brown-field sites to green field ones.

Trouble is brown field sites are more expensive to build on and typically infrastructure is poorer; things like asbestos clearance and power cables etc.

I don't think I am betraying any secrets to say that I know the Labour Party are exploring how they can support developers who are deterred from brown field opportunities by costs and complications.

I would hope all mainstream parties are doing this.

[neilj]

May 19, 2023 13:04:30 GMT befuddledbadger said:

As someone who eschews the salivating hype that so often disfigures discussions on this site, I'm a little concerned about terms like "concreting over the planet" being used in the context of Starmer's proposed plans to liberalise existing planning laws to allow building on very restricted parts of existing green belt. I gather too that the proposal allows for quite a lot of local consultation and will be limited to green belt areas that are already thought to be uncontroversial in terms of development.

I don't expect to see residential tower blocks appearing on the banks of Wastwater any time soon, even in the dystopian wasteland that Starmer and his egalitarian warriors have in store for us.

Agree, also think the term green belt conjures up an image of pristine agricultural or Parkland
In reality the Green belt also consists of former industrial sites and other land that had already been concreted over in the past
While sites not in the Green Belt can consist of fields
I think it requires a case by case basis

[Mark]

Thoughts on the Ukraine war...

Recent news that Russian missiles aimed a Kyiv were blasted out of the sky - including hypersonic weapons - will be a big blow to Putin.

There is, once again, talk of whether Putin will now use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

While there is a risk of this, I don't think he will for two reasons.

Firstly, if Ukraine can shoot a hypersonic missile out of the sky armed with a conventional payload, they can surely do exactly the same with one armed with a nuclear payload. The type of weapon that explodes if it gets through is not the issue.

Secondly, surely even Putin knows that it would be a massive escalation that risks drawing the west/NATO directly into the conflict.

Having said that, we (the west/NATO) do need to remain careful.

Putin has threatened a nuclear strike at almost every turn. At this point, he is pretty much the boy that cried wolf.

The problem with that is that we don't know what Putin's genuine red lines are and won't unless we cross them.

We are giving Ukraine increasingly sophisticated and powerful weapons - short of what they want, but, incrementally powerful weapons all the same. I worry about the risk of that.....for instance, we have recently given missiles with a 150 mile range. Ukraine says it will only use them on Russians inside Ukraine, not on Russia itself...but, what is the command structure? What, if anything is in place to stop a Ukrainian general 'going rogue'?

The ultimate question - and one that western leaders will have discussed/war-gamed comprehensively - is.....what happens if Putin does use a tactical nuke?

I will say what I have said before (and got shot down in flames for)...the response cannot be a military one.

The west/NATO/Biden wold basically have 3 options.

1. A like for like nuclear response (very highly unlikely).

That would mean world war 3. Such a strike would alost certainly be on Russian soil and would provoke a nuclear response from Putin. Game over.

2. A western/NATO conventional response on Russian military assets in the region - although outside Russia itself.

This, according to news reports would be the most likely response, but, one where Russia would fight back. Although conventional, it would still mean that we are in direct conflict with Russia. It wouldn't be long before one side employs a nuclear device, at which point, all bets are off.

3. Crippling - and I mean genuinely crippling - sanctions on Russia, but, short of a military response.

This, if reports are to be believed, would be less likely than (2), but, if done right - and in the event of Russian nuclear use would make it easier to get more countries, including those less hostile to Russia onside.

Really turn the screws on Russia economically...far more than at present.

[steve]

Brexitanian cult member of the week award goes to Mike Graham, if you don't remember Mike he's the giant intellect of talk tv who reckons you can grow concrete.

Here he is explaining Keir Starmer's cunning plan to intentionally ruin Brexit so he can sneak us back into the European union!

And they let these people run baths unsupervised.
youtu.be/peh5D9fopwQ

[domjg]

May 19, 2023 13:14:07 GMT Mark said:

Thoughts on the Ukraine war...

Recent news that Russian missiles aimed a Kyiv were blasted out of the sky - including hypersonic weapons - will be a big blow to Putin.

There is, once again, talk of whether Putin will now use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

While there is a risk of this, I don't think he will for two reasons.

Firstly, if Ukraine can shoot a hypersonic missile out of the sky armed with a conventional payload, they can surely do exactly the same with one armed with a nuclear payload. The type of weapon that explodes if it gets through is not the issue.

Secondly, surely even Putin knows that it would be a massive escalation that risks drawing the west/NATO directly into the conflict.

Having said that, we (the west/NATO) do need to remain careful.

Putin has threatened a nuclear strike at almost every turn. At this point, he is pretty much the boy that cried wolf.

The problem with that is that we don't know what Putin's genuine red lines are and won't unless we cross them.

We are giving Ukraine increasingly sophisticated and powerful weapons - short of what they want, but, incrementally powerful weapons all the same. I worry about the risk of that.....for instance, we have recently given missiles with a 150 mile range. Ukraine says it will only use them on Russians inside Ukraine, not on Russia itself...but, what is the command structure? What, if anything is in place to stop a Ukrainian general 'going rogue'?

The ultimate question - and one that western leaders will have discussed/war-gamed comprehensively - is.....what happens if Putin does use a tactical nuke?

I will say what I have said before (and got shot down in flames for)...the response cannot be a military one.

The west/NATO/Biden wold basically have 3 options.

1. A like for like nuclear response (very highly unlikely).

That would mean world war 3. Such a strike would alost certainly be on Russian soil and would provoke a nuclear response from Putin. Game over.

2. A western/NATO conventional response on Russian military assets in the region - although outside Russia itself.

This, according to news reports would be the most likely response, but, one where Russia would fight back. Although conventional, it would still mean that we are in direct conflict with Russia. It wouldn't be long before one side employs a nuclear device, at which point, all bets are off.

3. Crippling - and I mean genuinely crippling - sanctions on Russia, but, short of a military response.

This, if reports are to be believed, would be less likely than (2), but, if done right - and in the event of Russian nuclear use would make it easier to get more countries, including those less hostile to Russia onside.

Really turn the screws on Russia economically...far more than at present.

We are to all intents and purposes at war just at one very shaky remove and it's a war that now has to be won, any which way to forestall erosion of Western credibility and power. Lavrov the other day was quoted talking about the Afghan withdrawal as an example of how Western resolve will falter. That episode was so damaging that it's very possible I think that the Russians wouldn't have risked this war without it. 

Worrying is fine but we're in the water already, there's no point worrying about a madman's possible red lines we just need to get on with the task in hand while at the same time not being reckless. I personally suspect there will be direct conflict of some level at some point in the coming months and we're just going to have to accept that. Already there have been near misses like the British Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft that only avoided being shot down due to a malfunction and the crashed, unexploded Russian cruise missile that was found in central Poland. It's really only a matter of time. 

Your option number two (massive conventional strike on Russian forces in Ukraine/the Black sea) is what ex US general David Petraeus said would happen if they detonate a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. 

[Deleted]

May 19, 2023 13:04:02 GMT jimjam said:

Colin,

I have raised before the local Green voter who is really only concerned with their local environment.

They may share vague notions of saving the planet but not the expeditious net zero aspirations of Green politicians; typically they are former Tory voters at least in local elections in Darlington.

Young people may argue that in supporting new home building the net impact on the environment is positive as they should be designed to new standards of energy efficiency and made more sustainable in general.

Perhaps how these new homes being built can achieve this and how national regulations can require/encourage is something Labour need to explain?

Maybe solar panels means a council tax discount or a credit for the builder of same sort for example.

I will raise within the party as I think it is a fair challenge.

Thanks for responding.

I remain pretty cynical about  Climate Change related concern about The Planet.

[leftieliberal]

May 19, 2023 13:06:42 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 19, 2023 12:19:56 GMT colin said:

The biggest environmental impact of a new house is not where it is built but how it is built, of what materials and whether it is energy efficient. A major effect of not building on the green belt isn't that more houses get built on brown field land; rather it is that vast housing estates are plonked on agricultural land in places like Braintree that are not green belt. So natural habitats - much richer ones than a lot of the London green belt - still get concreted over, just in somewhere where rich suburbanites don't have to see it happening.

Good agricultural land does not equal good natural habitats. In fact what has been done to agricultural land over the last 70 years with the grubbing up of hedges, the reduction of field margins and the spraying with noxious chemicals has left our agricultural land worse than what was not well-suited to agriculture.

theconversation.com/environment-plan-for-england-asks-farmers-to-restore-nature-but-changes-are-likely-to-be-superficial-198632

[Deleted]

May 19, 2023 13:06:42 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 19, 2023 12:19:56 GMT colin said:

I'm don't see that young people wanting to have a roof over their head is hypocrisy, especially as part of the housing crisis is caused by elderly single person property owners occupying huge family homes and declining to release them to be used for their intended purpose.

The biggest environmental impact of a new house is not where it is built but how it is built, of what materials and whether it is energy efficient. A major effect of not building on the green belt isn't that more houses get built on brown field land; rather it is that vast housing estates are plonked on agricultural land in places like Braintree that are not green belt. So natural habitats - much richer ones than a lot of the London green belt - still get concreted over, just in somewhere where rich suburbanites don't have to see it happening.

Ah -the Elderly Did It again eh?

We are running out of sackcloth & ashes !

The "impact" of new houses is the total habitat they destroy in the whole project   and related infrastructure-roads/shops/car parks/drainage/utilities supply/ etc etc.

Its been going on for a long time ! :-

www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/urbanization-has-been-destroying-the-environment-since-the-very-first-cities-180948243/

The killer is "fragmentation"-cutting a contiguous ecosystem in half -or bits where the whole was needed to support its biodiversity. The notion of mitigation so often results in native tree  species of some age , with associated wildlife , being replaced with young species of a non native type.
What we are increasingly left with is desperate attempts to create/leave "corridors" between urban sprawl zones , connected to what is left of the local natural habitat. A miserable second best and a very poor apology.


I don't think modern "agricultural land" is "rich" natural habitat.

[leftieliberal]

Paul Whiteley on why a coalition with Labour may not harm the Lib Dems:
theconversation.com/liberal-democrats-why-a-coalition-with-labour-wouldnt-cause-electoral-annihilation-like-their-deal-with-the-tories-205955

But then he's not standing for Parliament. I prefer to trust the views of those whose seats are at risk if they make bad choices. C&S is as far as the Party should go and, if Labour win an overall majority, they don't even need to do that. The Lib-Lab pact only occurred after the 1974-79 Labour administration lost their overall majority. Whiteley is again only considering the economic (Left-Right) axis and not the other axes that people like Electoral Calculus use to divide up the electorate. On some axes Labour have more in common with the Tories than they do with the Lib Dems.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2023 13:24:48 GMT domjg said:

May 19, 2023 13:14:07 GMT Mark said:

We are to all intents and purposes at war just at one very shaky remove and it's a war that now has to be won, any which way to forestall erosion of Western credibility and power. Lavrov the other day was quoted talking about the Afghan withdrawal as an example of how Western resolve will falter. That episode was so damaging that it's very possible I think that the Russians wouldn't have risked this war without it. 

Worrying is fine but we're in the water already, there's no point worrying about a madman's possible red lines we just need to get on with the task in hand while at the same time not being reckless. I personally suspect there will be direct conflict of some level at some point in the coming months and we're just going to have to accept that. Already there have been near misses like the British Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft that only avoided being shot down due to a malfunction and the crashed, unexploded Russian cruise missile that was found in central Poland. It's really only a matter of time. 

Your option number two (massive conventional strike on Russian forces in Ukraine/the Black sea) is what ex US general David Petraeus said would happen if they detonate a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. 

Agree 100%

Worrying about whether Putin will use nukes now is a waste of time.

Sanction wont finish him off while he has friends in the Global Community-like BRICS -and the Arabs *

He has to be ejected militarily from Ukraine.

* watched Z's speech to the Arab League today. Boy that guy is some orator . He didnt pull his punches-and Assad was there !

[pjw1961]

May 19, 2023 13:40:39 GMT leftieliberal said:

May 19, 2023 13:06:42 GMT pjw1961 said:

The biggest environmental impact of a new house is not where it is built but how it is built, of what materials and whether it is energy efficient. A major effect of not building on the green belt isn't that more houses get built on brown field land; rather it is that vast housing estates are plonked on agricultural land in places like Braintree that are not green belt. So natural habitats - much richer ones than a lot of the London green belt - still get concreted over, just in somewhere where rich suburbanites don't have to see it happening.

Good agricultural land does not equal good natural habitats. In fact what has been done to agricultural land over the last 70 years with the grubbing up of hedges, the reduction of field margins and the spraying with noxious chemicals has left our agricultural land worse than what was not well-suited to agriculture.

theconversation.com/environment-plan-for-england-asks-farmers-to-restore-nature-but-changes-are-likely-to-be-superficial-198632

That is true up to a point, and I certainly recognise the reduced numbers of birds from my youth due to changed farming practices, but nevertheless .. 

There is a massive new housing development being built north of Chelmsford (just the latest of many) that will pretty much connect Springfield to Great Leighs halfway to Braintree - urban sprawl on steroids. A road has recently been built coming off the one I use to travel from Braintree to Chelmsford that spears its way straight across fields - its only purpose at present being to allow great big trucks to trundle their way to the building site. I watched a hare run across that road a couple of days ago and thought "sorry mate, your days are numbered".

There is a herd of deer whose range lies in the countryside between Chelmsford and Braintree - you regularly see the corpses of deer of all sizes slaughtered trying to cross the main road between those places, although in declining numbers as the toll is taken. As more and more houses and roads are built, their range will decline to a point is is not longer unsustainable for them. 

The bottom line is that the urban green belts are doing nothing to protect green spaces further out in places like Essex. 

[Danny]

May 19, 2023 11:24:00 GMT leftieliberal said:

May 19, 2023 9:58:56 GMT Mr Poppy said:

Building the 'wrong houses (expensive 3bed+ brick semis/detached) in the wrong place (green belt) lost CON a lot of councillors in recent LEs. We need more housing but it needs to be the right houses (genuinely affordable) in the right places (not green belt). There is also the NIMBY factor. Folks want housing but not near them - which becomes a problem if your HMG and Local Council (but not if you can blame one/both of the HMG/LA - as LAB/LDEM can.. for now). Polling - worth clicking on the link and checking the age x-breaks, which are a bit surprising for 'das yoof' I have to say (plurality of 18-24s are DK)

We not only need 'starter homes' for first-time buyers but we also need smaller houses for the elderly to downsize into (as the idea of multiple generations of a family living in the same house seems to be unacceptable) and these need to be near where they lived before so they don't lose their social contacts.

I am not altogether clear why the elderly will wish to downsize. yes, if they feel they cannot cope with a large property, but why would they wish to leave a family home they have loved for a long time, which they own outright and have a decent income to afford? The snag with hoping to get pensioners into retirement homes is they very well may have no wish to go there.

As to con losing votes due to a policy of housebuilding, its entirely possible lab could gain votes in exactly the same location with the same policy. It might be disgusted tories not turning out, compared to the lab inclined but non voting youth turning out when offered a home. Its imporant to comprehend it may not be the same people switching sides but different blocks.

At the moment the only way I can see genuinely affordable homes becoming available is if government builds them and then rents them out at well below market rent levels. Which is what the original state housing sector did.  This would free up homes currently private sector rented as they became uneconomic to rent,  for purchase.

There needs to be a system of subsidy which drives down prices, not like the bonuses to first time buyers schemes which drove up prices.

Andsince the average home has been shrinking in size for a while now, yes we do need to build larger not smaller homes.

[pjw1961]

May 19, 2023 13:49:41 GMT colin said:

May 19, 2023 13:06:42 GMT pjw1961 said:

I'm don't see that young people wanting to have a roof over their head is hypocrisy, especially as part of the housing crisis is caused by elderly single person property owners occupying huge family homes and declining to release them to be used for their intended purpose.

The biggest environmental impact of a new house is not where it is built but how it is built, of what materials and whether it is energy efficient. A major effect of not building on the green belt isn't that more houses get built on brown field land; rather it is that vast housing estates are plonked on agricultural land in places like Braintree that are not green belt. So natural habitats - much richer ones than a lot of the London green belt - still get concreted over, just in somewhere where rich suburbanites don't have to see it happening.

Ah -the Elderly Did It again eh?

We are running out of sackcloth & ashes !

The "impact" of new houses is the total habitat they destroy in the whole project   and related infrastructure-roads/shops/car parks/drainage/utilities supply/ etc etc.

Its been going on for a long time ! :-

www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/urbanization-has-been-destroying-the-environment-since-the-very-first-cities-180948243/

The killer is "fragmentation"-cutting a contiguous ecosystem in half -or bits where the whole was needed to support its biodiversity. The notion of mitigation so often results in native tree  species of some age , with associated wildlife , being replaced with young species of a non native type.
What we are increasingly left with is desperate attempts to create/leave "corridors" between urban sprawl zones , connected to what is left of the local natural habitat. A miserable second best and a very poor apology.


I don't think modern "agricultural land" is "rich" natural habitat.

I agree with the whole point about fragmentation, which is why building on the London green belt is a better environmental option that concreting over rural Essex. 

And yes, single people, mainly elderly, occupying family homes is a major contributor to housing problems, I well recall the Housing Officers at the district council I worked for endlessly bemoaning this - but it is not always their fault. As a country we also don't build enough suitable accommodation for people to downsize into. 

[Danny]

May 19, 2023 13:14:07 GMT Mark said:

The problem with that is that we don't know what Putin's genuine red lines are and won't unless we cross them.

I'd say, to stay in power himself. To preserve the borders of Russia itself and not lose its territory. All gains in Ukraine in this war are expendable, and so even is crimea.

I think with the propaganda he has been using (that Russia is fighting the whole west), he could stay in power if thrown out of Ukraine, provided he shows he did everything possible to win. That would not mean escalating this to a nuclear war, because that would quite honestly then threaten Russian territory too, because the west might come to see a need to totaly defeat Russia. Even Russian citizens might not quite see the point of holding parts of ukraine which are now radioactive. It has been suggested Russian armed forces would be disadvantaged more in the land war if nuclear weapons came to be used in ukraine. and you have suggested the most likely response, the west begins fighting dirctly in Ukraine.

We are giving Ukraine increasingly sophisticated and powerful weapons - short of what they want, but, incrementally powerful weapons all the same. I worry about the risk of that.....for instance, we have recently given missiles with a 150 mile range. Ukraine says it will only use them on Russians inside Ukraine, not on Russia itself...but, what is the command structure? What, if anything is in place to stop a Ukrainian general 'going rogue'?

Ukraine has already made attacks within Russia. It shot down a couple of planes and couple of jets recently. But it isnt going to disobey the restrictions imposed by the west on how to use these weapons when it needs the west to keep supplying more.

The ultimate question - and one that western leaders will have discussed/war-gamed comprehensively - is.....what happens if Putin does use a tactical nuke?

He wont, because he's not daft. What he has really neded since a month into this war is a way to end the fighting. It turned into a disaster for Russia. The only way I can see to do this is to lose a conventional war. He might bluster about escalating to nuclear, but he needs to de-escalate. Its all reminiscent of Sadam threatening to use his weapons of mass destruction, which he never even had.

[Danny]

May 19, 2023 13:24:48 GMT domjg said:

Your option number two (massive conventional strike on Russian forces in Ukraine/the Black sea) is what ex US general David Petraeus said would happen if they detonate a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. 

Just taking out the Kerch bridge would massively disadvantage russian forces in Crimea without needing to do anyting else. Ukraine would if it could but doesnt have long range weapons. Similarly, critical attacks on infrastructure as russia has used against ukraine.

[leftieliberal]

May 19, 2023 13:14:07 GMT Mark said:

Thoughts on the Ukraine war...

Recent news that Russian missiles aimed a Kyiv were blasted out of the sky - including hypersonic weapons - will be a big blow to Putin.

The Russians made a great deal about hypersonic missiles being unstoppable, but that's being economical with the truth. Even ICBMs are stoppable. Back in the 1960s the USA were protecting their ICBM launchers with the Sprint missile as the short-range part of the Sentinel defence system. The ABM treaty along with submarine-launched ballistic missiles effectively put an end to the programme as it wasn't necessary to preserve a second-strike capability. Hypersonic weapons have the disadvantage that they are not very manoeuvrable, so if you have missile defences near to their targets, you know their trajectories quite accurately and can intercept them. I suspect that the Israeli "Iron Dome" tracking technology combined with Patriot missiles is responsible. 

www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-air-defense-repel-barrage-russia-missile-kyiv/