Well that would make sense to me. But the article suggests that one of the motivators for companies to give up the legacy contracts might be that they're ending soon and a CfD gives longer term security.
That's a really informative article, thanks. Question though - why would you put legacy renewables onto a CfD after their subsidy period is over? Aren't they expected to have repaid their big capital costs by then, and be generating more or less free power?
This is very sad news. I've always enjoyed chatting with @nearlylegal.co.uk on here. He'll be badly missed by the housing world. nearlylegal.co.uk/2026/04/gile...
The problem is that we don't have the spare flats to do this in the UK. Finland has 516 homes per 1000 people and the UK only has 434. If we had another 5.7m homes (giving us the same rate as Finland) it would be a lot easier to find enough to accommodate everyone who's homeless.
Why is it "massively imposing"? I've seen fields given over to ugly poly tunnels, spread with smelly manure, or filled with noisy chickens. Is a field of solar panels somehow worse? It doesn't affect anyone's day to day lives.
I did some research on private landlords a few years back. Turns out they're eternal optimists:
- What would you do if house prices increase?
Buy more property, as I'll make more money.
- What if prices fall?
That's a good time to buy more property
Yes there was one team left really early on - they couldn't have covered that by pretending it was all part of the competition though because it was so early on.
I've a friend in this position with his mother and it's really hard. He's now banned politics as a topic with her, to avoid an irredeemable fall out, but she's now sharing far right conspiracy stuff with his teenage son via WhatsApp.
I'd always assumed they included it to create a bale out option for any of the teams who'd had enough by then. Pretending it's about who comes in last for added tension, but actually only included when one of the teams wants out.
Yes, I would imagine the big reductions in net migration ("Boris wave" returning home) is the main factor behind softening demand, which could well be masking a small fall in supply. But still doesn't suggest anything to worry about.
It would be winter when we'd expect to see it, if it did happen surely? Or possibly late summer for places where main demand is cooling. It's spring currently and weather is benign. Firing up existing coal plants is pretty quick to do.
If lots of landlords had been evicting tenants and leaving the market, that would push rents up. But we're not seeing that.
Rents staying flat very much suggests that any worries about a mass exodus of landlords in advance of the Renter's Rights Act coming in next month were unfounded.
Yes, if we're designing whole neighbourhoods and new towns, if should certainly be part of the design - and often is - though no inherent reason why developers should fund it. Councils & others should be (and are) involved too. But most new housing is built on smaller sites.
Ed Davey is right that there are big problems with access to GPs - and that this fuels opposition to new homes. But the way to solve that is to train and fund more GPs - otherwise developers end up funding empty buildings.
Building new homes does not create more people. They might move people around - But a typical GP surgery with, say, 6 GPs would serve around 12,000 people - or 6,000 homes. So only the very largest new developments might possibly require a new (or relocated) surgery.
Because GPs spend all their time dealing with the health problems of... houses? 🤔
That kind of urban infill is by its nature dispersed and should not require any additional GP surgeries (as you're not creating new people by building the new homes, nor moving the existing people around much)
There's quite a difference between biodiversity and the type of green space people value though - scrubland can be brilliant for biodiversity but seen as wasteland be people. In contrast, a playing field is of fairly minimal value to biodiversity.
Developers are already commonly asked to provide new GP surgeries, and do so as required. The trouble is, it's the NHS has to staff them, and there aren't enough GPs. People resist new housing because they can't get GP appointments, but it's people (not houses) who go to the doctor.
Women tend to have older partners so leave home to live with them at a younger age. Plus more women go to university.
I think people might well be less keen on living with roommates, but also less able to afford to live alone.
But they do seem to say in surveys that other people/society overall has got poorer, even if they personally haven't.
Most don't. But there may be a difference in how badly they don't.
People know objectively what their own finances are like so, unsurprisingly don't say they're getting worse when they aren't. But they still believe that overall, we're getting poorer - ie that other people are. Relentless media focus on the cost of living seems the most likely explanation to me.
The cost of housing is certainly a big factor. But I don't think we can dismiss that the living at home experience of young adults is very different today from a generation ago, and that may also be a factor.
Young adults may also stay home longer in part because living at home isn't as bad in a digital age. Netflix, gaming and online socialising beat sitting in the living room with your parents watching whatever they want to watch on telly.
I think that will change with the RRA. Annual increases broadly inline with inflation are the obvious way for landlords to reduce the likelihood of tenants challenging rents. As opposed to leaving rents alone for a few years, followed by a big hike.
I think *perceptions* of the gap between mid and high are that it's still very big - high profile very wealthy people, even though you're right re the data. But people are very aware if they're earning hardly more than minimum wage and feel this is unfair if they've taken 4 years to get qualified.
There's two sides to wage compression - the gap between low wages and median has shrunk, but the gap between median and high wages is still large. Both these factors cause frustration for many graduates in middle class/ public sector jobs who feel they're underpaid.