For once the great paymaster finds worthy use of an LBC talking head - Kudos to Ferrari .
Jimbo- listen and learn on how to conduct a political interview : no elevation of voice required to make a point , no making an arse of yourself required - just gentle , calm annihilation.
For once the great paymaster finds worthy use of an LBC talking head - Kudos to Ferrari .
Jimbo- listen and learn on how to conduct a political interview : no elevation of voice required to make a point , no making an arse of yourself required - just gentle , calm annihilation.
point is that LBC is not just a LONDON station anymore and where i live you can still buy a house for 60,000
Yes, to buy one, not build one - it's the cost of building affordable housing that the interview centred on. If it costs £54,000 or £60,000 to build a house, it's going to cost more than that to buy it: 1) to cover the inital cost price of building the house in the first place, 2) to break-even, and 3) for the (local) government to make a profit to plough back into the economy - but it probably will end up in private coffers tbh.
ETA: the whole scheme is to fund affordable rental market anyway which isn't a bad idea; it's just a shame the leader hasn't got a terribly good head for figures...
She could be doing the sensible thing and having an early night.
Or considering the even more sensible thing: standing down as leader of the party?
I have no doubt that she looked rough on TV later but very much doubt it was anything to do with a "huge cold". She sounded absolutely fine, and only introduced the weak cough and pathetic excuse as she drowned in her own sea of incompetence.
Or considering the even more sensible thing: standing down as leader of the party?
I have no doubt that she looked rough on TV later but very much doubt it was anything to do with a "huge cold". She sounded absolutely fine, and only introduced the weak cough and pathetic excuse as she drowned in her own sea of incompetence.
*cough, cough (save me!), cough, cough (this is a nightmare), cough, cough (what was that he was asking?), cough, cough (I hated maths at school), cough, cough (oh, my poor head! sniff)*
Yes, to buy one, not build one - it's the cost of building affordable housing that the interview centred on. If it costs £54,000 or £60,000 to build a house, it's going to cost more than that to buy it: 1) to cover the inital cost price of building the house in the first place, 2) to break-even, and 3) for the (local) government to make a profit to plough back into the economy - but it probably will end up in private coffers tbh.
ETA: the whole scheme is to fund affordable rental market anyway which isn't a bad idea; it's just a shame the leader hasn't got a terribly good head for figures...
I thought the proposals were about social (i.e. council), not 'affordable' housing, so the calculations would be quite different, wouldn't they? It would certainly be hard to tell from the interview!
Oh God now we've got the Baroness (for what? Who knows) on defending her. She thinks Nats is fantastic but she's been really really ill ok? And she's doing a GREAT JOB!
I thought the proposals were about social (i.e. council), not 'affordable' housing, so the calculations would be quite different.
Yes, you're right, it is about social rental homes that are affordable, but you still need to build the actual home which she said would cost £60K in total. That amount would be swallowed up in building materials alone (if you are not using bricks), let alone labour costs etc. If the start-up figures quoted aren't correct, how can we know that the rents will be at the very least competitive in a market where private landlords are coining it in (which is the whole premise of the Green proposal)? If the figures are not properly costed, local government will be renting those houses at prices way beyond what is reasonable.
Yes, you're right, it is about social rental homes that are affordable, but you still need to build the actual home which she said would cost £60K in total. That amount would be swallowed up in building materials alone (if you are not using bricks), let alone labour costs etc. If the start-up figures quoted aren't correct, how can we know that the rents will be competitive in a market where private landlords are coining it in (which is the whole premise of the Green proposal)?
It's all conjecture, of course, but wouldn't the building therefore be subsidised?
It's all conjecture, of course, but wouldn't the building therefore be subsidised?
Maybe. But then the whole outlay for this project per house is going to cost more than £60,000 per house if part of it is going to be government/taxpayer-subsidised. That's the problem with this interview: we couldn't get to the nitty-gritty details of the plan/proposal because Natalie didn't have a proper grasp the figures.
It was a strange discussion, to say the least. Firstly, as she had that 'huge cold' perhaps it would have been better to postpone the interview. I should think it was always going to be a given that NF would be challenging, although if she knew what she was going to be challenged on, she certainly should have been better prepared. I did find this aspect very surprising and, as has been said before, NF is like a dog with a bone once he discovers a weakness. I was also a little perturbed back when the leadership changed as I've always thought Caroline Lucas very much on top of her game and would have stood up to NF far, far better. This interview will go badly for the Greens, I should think.
I've yet to hear this 'disastrous' interview, but I've never rated NB. She's not the most articulate or comfortable of interviewees whenever I've heard her. I could never understand out of all the choices they had the Greens chose Natalie to lead them after Caroline Lucas stepped down. Although it appeared that NB had done a lot of good work in popularsing the Green vote it now seems that this was more of a lucky break than anything she really had to say. Any good work by her will have been completely undone and she will inevitably have to depart unless she can redeem herself at the tv debates. And that's not looking good now..
Oh God now we've got the Baroness (for what? Who knows) on defending her. She thinks Nats is fantastic but she's been really really ill ok? And she's doing a GREAT JOB!
Yes, to buy one, not build one - it's the cost of building affordable housing that the interview centred on. If it costs £54,000 or £60,000 to build a house, it's going to cost more than that to buy it: 1) to cover the inital cost price of building the house in the first place, 2) to break-even, and 3) for the (local) government to make a profit to plough back into the economy - but it probably will end up in private coffers tbh.
ETA: the whole scheme is to fund affordable rental market anyway which isn't a bad idea; it's just a shame the leader hasn't got a terribly good head for figures...
Nick F kept pressing Natalie Bennett on the cost of land before building, she was totally nonplussed by this question as though this had never entered her head let alone equations!! Best left to 'Mother Earth' I venture, she'd be better off negotiating for plots of land to erect glorious teepees, wigwams and mud huts instead.
Do other radio and TV stations pay LBC for the use of sounds clips, because the Ferrari/Bennet interview has been on all the major outlets? The online papers are also carrying it. A nice little earner if they do.
Thoroughly sick of that 'penguins in my room' ad and the burglar/phoney gas man one as well. You can hear them so often that it turns you off the product.
Comments
She could be doing the sensible thing and having an early night.
For once the great paymaster finds worthy use of an LBC talking head - Kudos to Ferrari .
Jimbo- listen and learn on how to conduct a political interview : no elevation of voice required to make a point , no making an arse of yourself required - just gentle , calm annihilation.
Watch bonkers Jenny Jones add her bit to the fiasco:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/green-campaign-launch
London too
Harrods toy dept - in the style of Qatar chic ;-)
Well said.
Yes, to buy one, not build one - it's the cost of building affordable housing that the interview centred on. If it costs £54,000 or £60,000 to build a house, it's going to cost more than that to buy it: 1) to cover the inital cost price of building the house in the first place, 2) to break-even, and 3) for the (local) government to make a profit to plough back into the economy - but it probably will end up in private coffers tbh.
ETA: the whole scheme is to fund affordable rental market anyway which isn't a bad idea; it's just a shame the leader hasn't got a terribly good head for figures...
Or considering the even more sensible thing: standing down as leader of the party?
I have no doubt that she looked rough on TV later but very much doubt it was anything to do with a "huge cold". She sounded absolutely fine, and only introduced the weak cough and pathetic excuse as she drowned in her own sea of incompetence.
*cough, cough (save me!), cough, cough (this is a nightmare), cough, cough (what was that he was asking?), cough, cough (I hated maths at school), cough, cough (oh, my poor head! sniff)*
I thought the proposals were about social (i.e. council), not 'affordable' housing, so the calculations would be quite different, wouldn't they? It would certainly be hard to tell from the interview!
Do me a favour.
http://youtu.be/YgYZd59LJyQ
Yes, you're right, it is about social rental homes that are affordable, but you still need to build the actual home which she said would cost £60K in total. That amount would be swallowed up in building materials alone (if you are not using bricks), let alone labour costs etc. If the start-up figures quoted aren't correct, how can we know that the rents will be at the very least competitive in a market where private landlords are coining it in (which is the whole premise of the Green proposal)? If the figures are not properly costed, local government will be renting those houses at prices way beyond what is reasonable.
And who buys the land?
Maybe. But then the whole outlay for this project per house is going to cost more than £60,000 per house if part of it is going to be government/taxpayer-subsidised. That's the problem with this interview: we couldn't get to the nitty-gritty details of the plan/proposal because Natalie didn't have a proper grasp the figures.
So, tell me how much of the land is government owned that could be built on?
Yes good question - for what -
Barren of feasible policies perhaps .
She's clearly ill prepared for questioning about certain Green policies & their costings, so she needs to go away & learn her lines, so to speak.
Nick F kept pressing Natalie Bennett on the cost of land before building, she was totally nonplussed by this question as though this had never entered her head let alone equations!! Best left to 'Mother Earth' I venture, she'd be better off negotiating for plots of land to erect glorious teepees, wigwams and mud huts instead.
He might have given her an easy ride as she's female. I've often heard him say how he adores women and "the female form". ;-)