The article states that 70% of those occupying social housing have their rent payed for by housing benefit. The article also mentions that housing benefit comes from central government.
So the effect of this is a transfer of more money from central government to councils and housing associations. As well as an increase in the incomes of councils and HAs from those 30% that are well-off enough to no longer receive housing benefit but are still living in social housing.
I'd say this is less about reducing CO2 and more about making cities and towns nicer places to live and helping people live healthier lives.
I have no idea what the stats on this are, but I'd guess that the amount of emissions saved in people cycling more vs using a petrol car or electric car wouldn't actually be much compared to measures that reduce emissions from goods transport.
TBH I thought the article was actually particularly good because it specifically pointed out that "immigration" isn't one homogeneous thing.
We end up with these worst-of-all worlds outcomes because we talk about immigration as if it’s one thing when in reality it is many very different things, because we refuse to confront trade-offs — and because each side has its own conversational no-go areas.
I think that point of refusing to discuss tradeoffs is also particularly pertinent. Significant chunks of the electorate will happily vote for Reform but then moan about the lack of staffing in healthcare. Or conversely, others will happily quote the stats that on average migrants are a net benefit to the country, but then refuse to investigate this thought further and realise that this is an average and those benefits may not be spread evenly (perhaps some areas are even negatively affected).
Wouldn't this be pretty bang-on expected for less premium groceries where profit margins are much thinner?
For example, a food product retailing at £2 where £1.80 covers farming costs and operational costs, inflation of 10% will increase those costs to £1.98, to keep a 20p profit, the retailer would increase the price to £2.18 (9% increase). A more premium food product that retails for £3.50 where the farming costs are only slightly higher might have a £2 cost for the retailer with a much higher markup of £1.50. To keep that same profit after 10% cost inflation (to £2.20), the price would rise to £3.70 (5.7% increase).
Bill Stickers is innocent!
Macquarie - famous for fucking over Thames Water by creating a deliberately complex company structure so they could load it up with debt in order to pay out dividends.
Saw the first clip in the video and couldn't handle watching any more. I'm all for allowing people the autonomy to take their own sensible risks and avoid over safety-fying things, but some people are ridiculous (and selfish in this context). If you're going to go over a level crossing when the barriers are closed, at least have the respect to run across, knowing that you're doing something risky, rather than casually stroll through the danger zone!
No luck catching them rate cuts then, BoE?
Very much agree with all these points. I also don't think it's that useful to be spamming this community with polls as they come out. But thought this was a helpful bit of information to see where things roughly stand at the beginning of campaign time.
* tory moment *
Weirdest set of things in the prize task for quite a while, I loved it.
Inverse of the classic: