The youth take Westminster, Michael Gove's landlord love and Starmer's NHS plan | Pubcast #13
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2023
- We have resurrected our Reddit account and want YOU to contribute to the discourse. Join us at r/politicsjoe.
This week we take a look back at last week's by-elections, where 25-year-old Keir Mather made Johnny Mercer very angry by winning in Selby and Ainsty. Oli then tries to crowbar Charlotte Owen's admission to the House of Lords into a conversation about youth representation in politics.
Ava went to Michael Gove's housing announcement on Monday where she asked him about Sadiq Khan's rent control proposals, we discuss the Levelling Up Secretary's reaction.
Finally we dissect reports that the number of people in England living with long-term illnesses will increase nine times faster than the working age population. We tie this in to Keir Starmer's proposals for a preventative system in the NHS.
Subscribe to our new podcast now, or you're a silly goose:
linktr.ee/pubcast
![อยู่ได้แล้ว - LIPTA feat. Mirrr [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-9-hpntNym4/mqdefault.jpg)
Join our subreddit for more cutting-edge political analysis reddit.com/r/politicsjoe
Charlotte Owen has performed NO public service and has no experience therefore her appointment is complete BS
I wonder which service she provided boris?, she looks like Jennifer Arcuri who supposedly provided "IT" services?
I really enjoy the pubcast but man, sometimes Oli has the weirdest takes. The idea that a 25 year old elected person highlights the same issue as a 30 year old unelected person (who keeps that job for LIFE) is wrong and unhelpful. Ava and Ed absolutely don't have any cognitive dissonance with that issue.
He's playing devil's advocate but I don't think that was his take I just think it was poorly articulated - I think he was trying to say that if someone is too young for the Lords due to the lack of experience, they're too young for Parliament too, and vice versa. She would've been more qualified to be an MP than Keir, based on her CV, for example. And in my view he's right, having any youth in there whatsoever is better than no one, and there definitely is a sexist element to the hate against Charlotte Owen assuming she just got in for being young and blonde.
@@nomoreheroes93I wouldn’t say she has more experience than Kier. I’d say they’re both relatively inexperienced, if anything neither of them have the experience to represent the UK. People don’t like Charlotte Owen because she got in by being an aide to Boris Johnson, and not really for any other reason, and yet now she has all the privileges of a baroness. So it’s the blatant nepotism people don’t like, and the fact she’s not a normal 29 year old, she’s a Tory 29 year old. And now we have her in public office for life. At least the other lords die off, she’s in for the long haul.
It's not the first time he's supported Boris Johnson's nepotism, it's weird to see him keep putting his flag there.
I don't think he is making that point, he's just saying if youth is a merit in one chamber surely it's a merit in the other. I didn't think he meant that merit overrode all other problems.
I think Oli has a legitimate point in that young people, who are subject to the impacts of policy just as much as anyone else, are pretty shockingly underrepresented in parliament as a whole. If we agree that from the age of 18 a person may participate by voting, then maybe the some of the candidates (and thereby the policies on offer) in an election should more closely align with that demographic. IMO abolishing the Lords is something the UK should really consider - but in our current situation we should push to have it more closely represent our population, otherwise we will always have to consult the elders before a (sort of) democratic policy is written into law.
Sorry Oli youre wrong here on House of lords youngest peer, completely agree with Ed and Ava here
Agree, we can't just ignore the entire context around her appointment just simply because she's young.
@@jessery475 I think he just meant her age wasn't a relevant criticism of her entry into the HoL.
I'm sorry but there is no comparision between a 25 year old who was elected by thousands of voters and a 30 year old got there by virtue of one person appointed her.
You man Daddy appointed her - she is the spitting image of Bojo
Agreed. I'd also say that instead of relying purely on sheer numbers of voters electing them as a good measure, we should put more emphasis on what that 25-year-old's historical service to the community has been. Numbers is dangerously close to celebritism and celebrity is no measure of integrity. I mean just look at some of the TH-camrs out there with millions of followers who are objectively complete dicks. PoliticsJOE not being one of them obviously 🙂
Yup, not sure what Oli is on about here other than driving 'conversation'.
I think it's fairly likely she had something to do with his communications up to May 2021. They extracted those WhatsApp messages from his phone a few days ago - the ones for that period that he's been trying so depserately to hide. Maybe we'll find out a little more sometime soon.
its the whole thing with "representation" as if identity politics is a purely aesthetic thing. Having a 30 year old woman shoved into the house of lords through a corrupt and undemocratic system purely because they knew the right people and greased the right palms isn't a win for anyone other than that person and the vested interests she has promised to represent. The fact she's 30 is of no importance. Its just like having women CEOs exploiting women in sweatshops in the global south to make a even bigger profit isn't feminist, or having black people in the police beating up antiracism activists isn't progressive. Change comes when systems change, not when the faces representing oppressive systems look more like the people they continue to oppress
Ed made the right call with Count Binface... An absolute legend!
Mhairi Black deserves to be in the Lords...29 and a formidable parliamentarian, that's the kind of experience you want in 30 year old
And she's a good example of a young, relatively inexperienced MP entering parliament and wiping the floor with her counterparts.
Absolutely love the PubCast - 3 thoughtful, likeable, funny people who have great chemistry commenting on the s**tshow that is British politics - pure chef's kiss, keep up the great work and I would encourage all to watch, regardless of political persuasion.
Oli is sadly naive about local agrarianism, farming is time and labour intensive, even with the latest tech. It's a middle class fantasy that has no basis in reality. When you're a farmer, even a small one, you have no time for anything else, other industries suffer and the people who suffer most will be the poor. The easiest solution is further subsidy and better planning over for production, it's not fancy or idyllic but its way more pragmatic and realistic
Speaking of the House of Lords, I'm not a fan of total abolishment of it. What needs to happen is the chamber should consist entirely of represenatives from all the councils across the UK. In one move that would purge the chamber of all the wretched cronies and over-entitled hereditary peers as well as enhancing the notion of devolution by inserting local government officials at the heart of politics. While we're at it we should get rid of the need for everyone in that chamber to don ridiculous peerage robes too. Whenever I see such rainment all I can think to say is "Worst Hogwarts student cosplay EVER!"
What you're talking about there is essentially what Gordon brown proposed in his paper about reforming the HOL, devolution and local democracy - The assembly of nations and regions. It's whether starmer's government implements those recommendations.
I think a significant minority (e.g. 25%) should be appointed experts, scientists, etc.
@@_Stroda That's reasonable though I was assuming that everyone in the chamber regardless of expertise is given access to independant experts and peer-reviewed and transparent research data to inform their opinions. Evidence-based politics is what we need, not factional, ideology-based politics. Instead we have cronies in both chambers largely focussed on the needs of very wealthy special-interest groups.
When you walk into Westminster or a chamber such as the House of Lords, you should see the same mix of people from all walks of life as you'd see in a large city shopping center. As it is we only see the kind of backgrounds you'd find in corporate boardrooms and public schools like Eton.
You need to meet the people that lead councils that would get in. These are people who have mostly failed to become an MP. Literally people who have failed to become a higher form of failure. I'm not saying they're all bad, but the state of local politics should indicate how bad of an idea this is.
@@dazecm Well, that would be great, but it's quite evident that a lot of those who would end up in this chamber as 'representatives' wouldn't bother to listen to the experts, or understand what they were told if they did. I want at least some genuine expert overtight of our legislation.
What ever happens we need to make sure that the new hospitals built are by the British and they are nationalised. Under no circumstances should our new hospitals be built privately by the Americans. Nord stream went down and the Germans are reliant on the Americans now, We need to make sure the NHS survives and we are the ones building our own infrastructure.
As a planner i do take offence to tarring us all as NIMBYs many planners are young people feeling the full brunt of the housing crisis. If you read planning industry journalism i think you will find the majority support more building in all forms. Often blocked by the need for legislation to be approved by local politicians, and align with central gov policy. Or in the case of development management - local members and community sticking their nose in.
The problem is, people want to establish new, high density housing, in areas with over subscribed schools, doctors and dentists etc. No one wants to build new communities with everything they need. Just add houses to full steam and feck everyone who already lives in them.
Why are community members not allowed to have a say in their community?
@@hapijoel7569 Is that retorical? They absolutely are encouraged to have a say in their community. Both through public consultation on development and plan production and also through the medium of neighbourhood planning where local communities write a development plan for their area defining what type of development they want and where it should go....
Unfortunately a certain sector of retired folk who already own their housing dominate the discussions with anti development hysteria in an effort to protect their house values and often unremarkable surrounding area.
Olly quoting the cheems mindset from britmonkey was a highlight
I’m with Oli to a degree, there are plenty of 30 year olds who probably are qualified to sit in the Lords based on their skills - I’m 28 and I’ve been a board member of a Housing Association on a skills based board for example, and we know that most of the Lords are older people who aren’t on the page with what life is like but I’m firmly behind Ed and Ava that Charlotte Owen *is not* a good candidate for the Lords as she hasn’t done enough to warrant the appointment, there are question marks over her CV and previous appointments. It’s an insult to younger people who are doing things in their communities who are potentially skilled enough to sit in the Lords. That said, Ross Kempsell, also elevated to the Lords in Johnson’s Resignation Honours list is 31 and you don’t see the same outrage about him so that may lead some to point at the press around Charlotte Owen as being sexist outrage.
Oh yeah, there are definitely tones of "I wonder what she did to deserve that seat.." as in, people assume, because of her gender, that she earned it with sexual favours.
Yeah... They arent the same. A younger person getting into the commons is praiseworthy because the commons is supposed to represent the country and therefore a younger person (whatever their experience or merits) could be said to better represent under represented interest groups. That isnt the point of the Lords - notwithstanding the egregious nepotism - its supposed to be scrutiny, guided by experience in various fields.
People on headphones watch out with listening to the Pubcast by PoliticsJoe. Oli will destroy your ears.😂
No Oli
Oliver is so wrong. One young person got voted for, the other is elevated for LIFE , and why? She's either BJs love child/former lover/hoped for lover. There is no comparison.
To be fair, if the crew didn’t clap and it was just Oli shrieking and clapping on his own, that wouldn’t be bad, it’d be hilarious
If in a shop I buy a product for £2 that the shop owner had to pay £1 for, they made £1 on that transaction. If a landlord has a mortgage for £800 and charges £1000 for rent, they've only made £200 on that transaction, they are still in possession of that house. Maybe private landlords shouldn't be allowed to make money every month, as well as own the house at the end of it all.
Very odd take. What you are describing is the case for any business that provides a service. If you buy a plane ticket, the airline makes money on your flight and still has the plane at the end of the transaction. There is nothing morally wrong with service providers, and in the case of renting housing is effectivly a service.
@Ice5643 except that housing is a basic human right. At least in my opinion it is.
@freko106 and they basically earn that money passively, let's not forget that.
TH-cam fodder made by the naive for the gullible. What an absolute joke of a channel this is.
Oli knocking the comparative analysis of planning systems out of the park!
Ollie, I'm with you all the way on the smallholdings. Big fan, it's a personal dream to have one myself.
It's a great answer to nimby's in the country blocking development in the greenbelts. Designate zones around market towns in the country for development only for smallholdings.
It adds to the small market economy, rocketing local farmers markets as a regular means of food security. It revitalises those small-medium size towns by adding population close to existing centres whilst not being heavy handed in wiping out rural communities.
People argue about the beauty of the countryside being damaged through development, I see smallholdings as benefitting the beauty of the countryside. What's more beautiful acre's and acre's of tilled soil or a few dozen smallholdings with agroforrests built on permaculture designs.
They can be added in belts around existing towns so that there's a gradual reduction in population density rather than developers converting farmland into new build enclosures.
Sooo many positives, I'm yet to hear any negatives.
Do you genuinely believe that small holdings are the long term solution to wider food security in the UK? This was the underlying point and it appears to me to be an unachievable utopia. Small holdings are not only inefficient and relatively carbon intensive but they are also subject to the same climate stresses as larger scale production but have the added problem of individual competence leading to failures. How would the distribution of the surplus be managed? How would food standards and safety be assured? The idea of an idilic agroforestry ignores that particulates from wood burning (which is part of the utopia) are a serious health problem and a major issue in lesser developed economies that still practice small holding agriculture. Pest control would be needed and arguably coordinated because deer and rabbits can wipe out crops overnight
@@Notalloldpeople it's not that it's THE solution, it's PART of the solution.
I'd also advise you look into the principles of permaculture design. When you design in for water retention, homes for biodiversity, natural pest control methods. It's a big benefit to the local environment. Less flood risk, less chemical runoff into rivers, increase in pollinators. There are many benefits that make up for the deficiencies of scale.
The reason why we stopped farming was to continually diversify our labour and this would be lost if we went back to this. What's the point in going to university and becoming a particle physicist if you need to spend all your time farming? Additionally, the carbon efficiency of a small holding is actually lower than for industrial farming on an intensity based metric, requiring more land to deliver the same volume of harvest. I'd like to look after some chickens too, so how would we overcome these hurdles?
@@kieran7409 Ok so if you want to raise one of the best case examples of top education, high intelligence career paths, particles physics, go for it. But you're completely denying the other end of the bell curve, not everyone is suited to university education. Both are productive and sure you can assign more value to one over the other but I'd rather they both be an option.
Second point, carbon efficiency. Large scale production systems will always outcompete. They're also often terrible for the environment whereas I'd guess small holdings tend to have way higher biodiversity, at least it's something I'd like to integrate if I was to do it myself. I also reckon that'd it'd be easier to make a smallholding carbon neutral, no evidence for that claim though.
@@thatpenguinkid Point 2 is an interesting one isn't it? I can see benefits of both approaches. For me the biggest issue is the time value, if everyone is growing food they won't have time to do other things and sometimes these things are what push us on as a society. Many examples in history of agrarian reforms preceding cultural or societal shifts. I'm aware of the monocrop con, and how Neolithic man probably had a more enriched quality of life (but also his children died young and he died to a scratch that went bad)
It comes down to numbers really, are enough people willing to run small holdings such that it satisfies our food demand? (or at least balances out the food/trade deficit?) It's becoming more challenging each year to balance out yield due to climate change plus all the other stuff, perhaps it's time to argue that we introduce anti-fragility into the food supply.
*HERE IN BULGARIA* we have millions of small holdings - you can take your produce to the local shop and they will buy it from you and sell it
All my veg is grown within 2km of my apartment
That is amazing. Bulgaria has a special place in my heart as I visited as a child. This was back in the day when holiday makers used to exchange cash on the beach with beefy body builders, the guys name that exchanged the cash was called Vincent. Other things I remember are Hungarian Goulash lit on fire and bats flying around as we ate our meals in the night. People were lovely and I hope you are prospering.
@@Oldmanpeace - HI - Im British, I moved here in 2009. But I also remember the Bulgaria you talked about, I think my first visit was 1993?.
It has modernised very very considerably, but I am pleased to say it has mostly avoided Westernising. I miss the horse and carts on the old dirt roads,, but I don't have a family to support and need a modern job [Im an author so work from home]
The quality of life index says that Bulgaria will pass Britain for average quality of life in 5 years.
Just FYI - its 42ºC today so somethings are not great LOL
@@piccalillipit9211 You are bang on buddy, was late 80s and it is great to hear that Bulgaria is modernising. Hope your writing does well my friend, thank you for the update :]
@@Oldmanpeace THANK YOU ..!!!
You can get into the Lord's for favours, whatever they maybe, plus the person putting you there has expectations of you. Only answer is to get rid of the whole system.
This was a really cool conversation, great video.
Feel like I just walked into my communal kitchen at uni, fun times, great being young
Appreciate Olly trying to maintain a debate and not becoming a echo chamber.
Don’t be so quick to judge the vaccine sceptics, Dr John Cambell and others need to be listened to.
The irony that I had a green washing Aramco advert while listening on Spotify!
I'm a month late to this one now cursing myself for being a month late to seeing Oli explain Cheems to Ed and Ava.
Olly's point about planning regs (discretionary vs regulatory etc) was good - but there's a further point in that we need to expand what we use for building in this country at the same time. A lot of areas have moved to timber-framing, but the vast majority of properties are still made with very old-fashioned methods that not only involve more labour with higher specialisation, take more time, use more equipment, and cost more - but also have many times the environmental impact. Not to mention the these houses tend to be much harder to adapt to changing climates - they'll cost a lot to future-proof. I fear if we moved to a more standardised form of planning whereby if the plans meet certain criteria they guarantee permission we're likely to restrict it only to these older methods. Not because they're 'tried and true', but because sticking to them benefits the large house-building companies, land-owners, and anyone with a vested interest in keeping property prices high (ie: anyone with any wealth or power).
That smallholdings idea is amazing, might even go down well with the green belt NIMBYs
For the comments for the Greek fires. In Greece we've had fires for decades every summer and in many cases these fires have been arsons mainly because afterwards the burnt forests were being included in the city plans. So then you'd have hotels and new houses being built at these areas. There have been laws that theoretically enforce trees to be re-planted but it's Greece so these have remained theoretical. It is definitely more complicated than what I've described above, but when it comes to fires in Greece the arson argument is definitely not a "climate change denier" argument. The climate change is definitely helping in the spread of these fires, along with the fact that we actively populated our forests with pines which catch fire like matchsticks. On top of that you have a Greek state that is not properly funding the fire brigade services and they are basically leaving locals to handle it. When successful they take the "congrats" when unsuccessful (99% of the time) they blame the climate change and they tap themselves on the shoulder that nobody died.
I love the pubcast, I hate the audio balance. Its always off in some way and having Oli be 50% of the volume of Ava this time has driven me slightly mad while I have been listening. Great topics though.
Do people turn off during the shouty intro?
I usually skip. Today I missed.
Olly what happened to your early morning weekend LBC slot? I quite enjoyed listening to it recorded later in the day.
Apparently, I'm just going to wait here for another 83 minutes!
Finally, you took your time!
I love podcasts, but hate nonces, so this podcast is perfect for me
Prevention re illness isn't about the NHS it's about social care, youth clubs, education, housing. Prevention re the NHS is about properly funding everything around the NHS so that we don't have such a burden put on it in the first place.
I think it’s worth taking a deep dive into planning and getting your points straight on this. I think the gist of the description of the existing system isn’t way off base, but the proposal is a bit light on substance.
The reason why planning is discretionary and not effectively binary is that there are actually very few situations in which a one-size fits all solution works. Every property in the land has to navigate local plans, national planning guidance, local political will, objections from fellow residents, geotechnical issues, drainage access, electricity supply, party wall law, environmental targets, thermal performance, wildlife sensitivities, density targets, road use implications and a host of other technical and legal issues before we even get on to it being fucking ugly or not. Planners sometimes have the ability to determine based on delegated powers, which can shorten the process and other applications go to committee for determination - which is the longer process.
Fundamentally, and this only my opinion, I feel it would be better if we had a well funded and resourced planning team in every council as it is only when the staff are not massively overstretched that we can look at plotting new and interesting housing and working outcomes, rather than desperately trudging through backlogs and delays. Our cities are designed things and they only look that way because planners (good or bad) have directed planning applications in such a way that the market can develop or not.
I’d ask you to perhaps look at it in detail - you’re not wrong about impact on society and the importance of good policy, but I don’t think you’ve hit the mark with your proposal.
Densification must come with greater legislative requirements on soundproofing any newly constructed housing. If we have to live on top and beside eachother we should be able to watch TV, vacuum, play an instrument or whatever without the neighbours hearing it and banging on the wall to shut you up.
Yes! I live in Newcastle in a housing estate that gets lots of middle aged middle class architecture types celebrating it 4ho don't actually live in it and don't know about the near non existent sound proofing. I feel hemmed in all roundnby noise , you hear other people's toilets flush, you hear coupes at it thru the bedroom wall. I get people right outside my living room door being anti social because its also my front door which leads straight out onto a lift landing . Feel like noone takes this seriously. It's ravaged my nerves. I want to live in a nice regular street not a toy town high rise .
May I suggest to the producer to add a master low cut, to keep the elbows bumping against the table from giving me a migraine? Thank you.
On ULEZ I would like to point out it took them 20 years to remove lead from diesel after seeing the damage it was doing to public health.
Wow we have breeched the Cheems barrier.
Post war built council houses which were not high rise all had big gardens to help people grow their own. Allotments were initially for a place for those in social housing to grow their own. They are now priced out of the reach of many
Good ep
The only acheivement of Owens' appointment is the illusion of progression. Which is regressive if anything at all. Huge fan of the small holding idea.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that Marcus Rashford would be more qualified than Charlotte Owen to exercise scrutiny over legislation.
Marcus Rashford had success pushing a simple idea, everyone could get behind. The idea that an uneducated footballer is qualified to scrutinise legislation in complex written papers is nonsensical.
I dont know the other person, so they might be a moron, but someone should be suitably intelligent to scrutinise legislation.
Love Ollie’s views on small holdings I actually think he’s 💯 right on that
Oli the Charlotte stan 😂
ollies was willfully ignoring anything that was brought up to counter his position on Charlotte Owens. It sounded like he was having a completely different conversation to the one that was actually happening and just stuck to his position that its a good thing she is there because she is young despite every other reason.
Doesn't it say more about the tories that constituents would rather vote for a 25 year old than a more experienced candidate?
there’s no world in which Mather represents any youth other than your local uni’s tory society
I enjoyed the Brixton specific chat, PoliticsJOE is really the politics show for Brixton Boys/Clapham Girlies in the same way Novara is for people who live in Hackney
So a week after the dominatrix tutorial Ava had a break-up, calling all pay pigs!!!
The real scarey thing about these wildfires is that they don't even mention that Siberia was on fire for the best part of a year. 🙃
I 100% disagree with the middle guy about Charlotte Owen.
1) Saying that the House of Lords is supposed to be about expertise, and Charlotte Owen isn't an expert, isn't an argument against the current system.
2) Saying that Ex-PM appointments should be based on something like expertise isn't an argument against the current system, it's based on it.
3) You can criticise the current system as part of another criticism. Systems aren't separate.
4) There's no reason to think Charlotte Owen represents young people. At least MP's are elected.
5) All Tories are bad.
Lets just come out and say it... She didn't just work for Boris, she worked UNDER Boris *wink wink* bet Mad Nads has a picture of her on her dartboard
Olly is solarpunk, love it
Having a thirty year old lord representing the interests of thirty year olds is like cruella braverman representing the interests of immigrants…..
The idea we need to make cities denser and taller is crazy to me. Cities are already crime-ridden, cesspits. We don't need cities anymore, with most people hybrid working, or working from home. We don't need Hugh rise offices, and flats close by to provide employees.
Okay but is the reflection from your green screen getting brighter every week? I give it a month until this is officially a Shrek Fancast
Love the podcast but the audio quality could be better. A little compression and EQ would go a long way.
Can I remind young voters to register to vote, find out who came second in their constituencies in 2019, and then vote for that second party? A lot of young voters don't bother. And at the next election, every single young vote is going to count. Don't split your vote. If Labour were second, vote Labour. If the Lib Dems were second, vote Lib Dem. But don't waste your votes on parties that will never, ever be elected in your constituency. You are voting for YOUR MP. Not nationally, and not for the Prime Minister.
What do you do if the Tories win such a huge proportion of the vote there's no way to tactically vote? I've been on the tactical voting website and it says there's no alternative because Tories win 40% of the entire vote and I don't think we've had a non Tory MP in absolutely decades.
Is there any advice what to do there?? I'm hinckley and bosworth constituency, it's not a rich area AT ALL, hinckley isn't anyway, but sadly bosworth is full of rich nimbys and it skews it but the Tories win 35k+ votes and all the others (labour libs and green) only get 21k altogether so it feels a bit hit hopeless so any advice please let me know.
"If Labour were second, vote Labour" That would require you to believe the Labour party under Starmer are not an actively dangerous proposition for any one who is not wealthy or powerful, as with the Tories.
Benevolent neo-feudalism for the win!
Ollies idea about small holdings is excellent except totally, totally, totally irrelevant without land ownership reform
I’ve been enjoying your X posts. They are very adult or “X” rated in nature.
Oli… Your idea would not decrease food insecurity. It’s not large scale enough to feed enough people. If we want to keep eating meat, we need more battery farms. That’s the dark reality.
I like the smiley thumbnail for this vid
I don't understand the Kate Andrews' suggestion that the UK has the highest per capita health expenditure. Everything on Google seems to suggest it's about the oecd average. The only way I can think for that to not be an outright lie is by taking only Government spending, ignoring the vastly higher private insurance contributions and access fees present for other countries. Either way I'm sceptical it isn't anything but a deeply deceptive statistical manipulation.
Every intro I always hear 'Love podcasts! Hate Nonces! Its the Politics Joe podcast! I don't think I've got that right :-S
Renting sector confuses me. They talk about buying homes as an investments. So if your mortgage (and other fees) goes up to £1000, you are charging £800 and you would be down £2,400, but the home has went up by £5,000. They have less money in the bank but their portfolio is up £2,600! Seems like they must increase the rent and must always be earning money on top of the homes value.
Greedy, landlords, and greedy lettings agents, happy days!!😊
Tabletop mic stands... No lowcut or anything. Subwoofers get a workout every time one of you even grazes the table with your hands.
Can I submit to living on a small holding then as opposed to a 5 storey building? I live in a southern seaside town - on the outskirts at that and they are just starting to put up multi storey building in to house people and I just can’t think of anything worse, on the outskirts of a small town with hardly any travel links and crap jobs and people are being forced to buy the “affordable” 250k one bedroom flats. It may be needed in big cities like London but not all of us want to live like rodents on top of each other.
How to change the NHS? Reverse the privatisation.
Gove, against rent control, these people have no idea on how real people live!!
Oli is so naïve to think small holdings is that way to go. Its very romantic and sounds lovely but collapses under the slightest scrutiny. It's logistically near impossible to feed the population with that system
I propose a blanket ban on baseball caps in this podcast.
Rents may as well be public there are already companies whose business is tracking median rents and telling you what you can get away with for a fee.
It’s possible to _not_ rule out some 30-year-old as being too young for the House of Lords in principle and also to say that Charlotte Owen specifically is not a good candidate.
Mather will be Streeting 2.0 and we DEFINITELY do not need that
Based on the data I found RE the UK having one of the highest per capita health spends globally, it seems we are 14th, unless there is more recent data, and until recently we were below the OECD median, 14th is high in global terms but I wouldn't count it as one of the highest in the OECD. Not sure where the data Oli is getting on that is from, does anyone know?
Probably going to take some flak for this but I'd rather see Marcus Rashford in the Lords than Charlotte Owens. At least he's done some noteworthy public service - although I don't think he could be an effective legislator during his football career.
Putting aside the fact the Lords should be scrapped, I think age is irrelevant in a person who wants to represent the youth. It's entirely about attitude and experience. I'll be willing to be there's plenty of Lords three-times the age of Johnson's pal, who are more likely to offer better representation to young people.
Oli's argument seems to be that, because the Lords are unelected, basically anyone should be ennobled.
Love podcasts hate nonces
Why?
love podcasts hey nonsense it's the politics joke podcast ladies and gentlemen
I actually respect PolJoe slightly less for this😂 Wtf was that with Charlotte Owen, he came off like Pontius Pilate. That bit Ava politely called Utopian was like listening to someone read Fight Club upside down.
Oli couldn't be wider of the mark here with comparing the work experience girl being put in the lords unelected, on the same level as a motivated 25 year old who has done lots of work in his local community and won the hearts and minds of his constituents. On the same show may I add where just a few weeks ago you (rightly) praised Mhairi Black for what she's done in Westminster. Why is that so different?
Because Black is left of Marx and Mathers dares to be right of Corbyn.
Ollie feels a bit 'balance for balance's sake' in this one
Uxbridge, Tories narrowest margin since 1906,
Labour won 1945-1955 and in 1966, each time a narrow win.
Uxbridge is as safe as it gets, Tories barely held.
I'd be happy for Marcus Rashford to be there
Anyone else find more than a uncanny resemblance to Jennifer Acuri and Charlotte Owen, I saw her today for the first time and immediately thought wow that’s very like that woman who Johnson had an affair with and should have been found guilty for abuse in a public office.😊😊
Ok, so what does Shaun call Oli? And Ava looks lovely, like a blue where's wally.
I guess a benefit of being unelected is that you're not constantly working toward securing your re-election
She has her fathers eyes. Bozo must be err...proud?
Get rid of the stoopid baseball cap.
The spend on health per capita figure Kate Andrews whips out is misleading. 1. It includes £38 billion of test and trace spend. 2. Per capita GDP has fallen. 3. On a £ for £ basis we spend less on health than most major economies per capita. 4. GDP per capita and health outcomes are intertwined. If you cut health budgets, then more people will be sick and out of work putting pressure on GDP per capita growth. So reducing spend on health impacts outcomes AND GDP negatively meaning it’s a poor measure. Since Covid, there’s been a 400,000 increase in people who are long term sick- largely due to mental health, and this should serve as evidence that if you don’t provide these services the economy suffers.
It’s better to look at the actual spend per capita (ignoring the GDP element due to multicolinearity) and compare that to outcomes to determine value for money or “bang for your buck”. When you do that you find the NHS is very efficient compared to other health systems, despite poor outcomes (due to lack of spend AND social inequalities).
Ollie is right in what he says about health inequalities and a whole of government approach. But Kate Andrews is using misleading figures to support a bad faith argument so should be ignored entirely.
CHARLESTON SOUTH CAROLINA ❤
Snort-laugh : 25:09
You lost me at woodsmoke, Ollie