Best Of

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

Yes Trump's a narcissist and its people like you with your non-stop infatuation of posting everything he does that gives him all the attention he so craves. You might as well just vote for him and be done with it.

Yes, Trump is the fault of his critics, or the fault of the Democrats for standing Kamala Harris, or the fault of people being too woke. It's never the fault of the people who supported Trump.

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

"Building near train stations will mean busier train"

I always find arguments like this a little bizarre.

There may be some truth for some individual stations, but aggregate demand for infrastructure, whether trains or roads, is driven by the size of the population. Not whether or not young people need to move back in with their parents (current position for many) or if they can afford to rent or buy somewhere of their own.

Increasing housing supply doesn't increase the net demand for infrastructure, it just improves the likelihood that more people can afford their own place to rent or preferably buy.

Building up near railway stations is a no-brainer. In London and the south east (at least) you'll find easy demand for such properties.

Yet only in the last week we have had a development on a car bark at Barnet station rejected because NIMbYs. It was recommended for approval to the council.

https://www.housingtoday.co.uk/news/barnet-council-rejects-nearly-1800-new-homes-across-two-schemes/5139733.article

Just so I’m clear. You would agree any application irrespective of whether it contravened the guidelines on density and height laid out in the Local Plan of which any developer would be fully aware.

Let’s also drive a stake through the heart of the “we have to build” argument. Most of these no doubt well appointed little boxes will be far out of the reach of the people who need housing - those on housing waiting lists, families in one room, those people. If you want to solve the housing crisis and improve the quality of life for tens if not hundreds of thousands of families, build new houses and flats and sell them to local councils for £1 per unit and then let the council allocate them to the people who need them.

In this case yes as it was recommended for approval by the planning authorities at the council.

The one development being on an old car park adjacent to the station.

So who is going to build houses and sell them to the council for a nominal amount to transfer the title ?

People needing homes in Barnet won’t be helped by this rejection.

You can do both. Increase council and private provision

That's the Will Of The People for you.

The councillors who turned down these schemes were almost certainly accurately representing what their voters think. What probably happens now is that either Sadiq calls in the application and approves it, or (more likely) it goes to appeal and gets approved by unelected judges.

Some more delay, some more cost, but everyone's concience is clear.

(I imagine that the 800 m/ten minute walk rule will open up a lot of development land in Havering- we've got the District line, the Lizzie Line and a green belt that was frozen in place decades ago. I also imagine that the current residents really aren't going to be happy about that.)

The problem with high density schemes, which in an urban environment necessitates apartment blocks is this:

Service charges.

They can in themselves be a small mortgage payment each month.

It’s all very well having huge apartment blocks as they have been building around Tottenham Hale station for a few years now, but 30 storey buildings will need quite a bit of maintenance and care.
.
I’m not against this proposal but without reform of leasehold tenures and associated governance of management companies there may end up being alot of buyer remorse.

I think most of us think the classic Victorian tenement works quite well for most of the UK. 8-12 flats. England needs to bin it's leasehold system though, no doubt.

In London where this will have the most effect (due to the sheer number of stations and demand) no developer will ever propose (or local authority approve ) 8-12 flats on a parcel of land.

A perfect example of this policy is Tottenham Hale. And not to mention Meridian Water further up the line. Take a look one day, or someone else on here can confirm. The apartment buildings are monsters. 500 apartments in one skyscraper maybe?

My son has just moved into one of them in Tottenham Hale. He is renting. No idea what he is paying. I was quite impressed with it, but then it is brand new. Overlooks the canal and spitting distance to the station. His girlfriend is a fellow at Cambridge and he has just left Cambridge to work in London. Both their commutes are easy.

One thing I have noted (against Leon's pronouncements on London) is how really rough areas in the past are now quite nice. A friend's son has just moved into Leytonstone. It used to be very rough. Now it is really nice.

They’ve definitely made them look as best as they can. And they’re perfectly situated. Aesthetics are fine.

I just worry about what happens in 10-15 years when lifts start to age and structural maintenance becomes more a thing.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

Yes Trump's a narcissist and its people like you with your non-stop infatuation of posting everything he does that gives him all the attention he so craves. You might as well just vote for him and be done with it.

I'm grateful for your infatuation, Alan.

Well its always the same Trump Trump Trump. I get bored shi6tless with Trump nonsense what about the rest of the world or even the UK ?

You should email the White House.

Interesting article on the Labour new housing policy.
My guess is that it gets well and truly crippled, but if it were actually delivered to its potential, it could be transformative.
The excerpt points out the necessity for accompanying transport investment.

https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/labour-are-finally-taking-the-housing
..To be clear, this isn’t a policy for sprawl. New developments must exceed minimum density standards of 40dph (dwelling per hectare) for all stations and 50dph for the best connected stations. There is an expectation that in urban areas even higher densities will be reached.

It is hard to overstate how big this is. The Government could easily exceed its 1.5 million home target for the Parliament just by building near stations in London and the South East. And that doesn’t even adjust for the higher densities sought in urban areas. If it survives consultation, and you best believe there will be an almighty fight, it will be the single most powerful pro-supply move in post-war Britain.

This is radical by British standards, but there is precedent. New Zealand’s most expensive cities have built at a clip since successive governments brought in measures to create a similar ‘default yes’ to densification near city centres and busy transport corridors. One study suggested that over six years the policy cut Auckland’s rents by nearly a third. If the same happened in the capital, the average Londoner would save £9,000 each year.

California, one of the few places with a housing crisis as bad as our own, is trying something similar. They have just passed SB79, a major reform that will permit up to nine-storey development near bus, tube, and train stations.

There will be challenges. Building near train stations will mean busier trains. ..

Good news for those of us stuck in traffic caused by low density housing sprawl with no public transport provision - looking at you Midlothian Council, bunch of freeloading carbrain numpties.

Will our developers go for this? Entirely against the ethos of maximising their land values by building as inefficiently as possible. We might have to make building sprawl harder.

High density and no (more) public transport on the other hand raises the question of where to park cars.

Aren't these developments meant to be within walking distance of the station?

Yes but who goes shopping by train? There are lots of new flats round here with more on the way, but we have great bus and tube links. From other parts of the country, one hears horror stories of one bus every two days. I've been in favour (on pb) of building near railways for longer than it has been government policy, but it needs to be part of a package and in the medium to long term, we need new towns to revive the regions.

This is the theory behind 15-minute cities. If you build density around that train station, you generate the economic critical mass required for a High Street to develop around it.

That means that you can get 100,000 people (or more) who don't need to jump in a car to grab some food. It's also much cheaper to provide public services like schools and GP practices. Public transport requires density to work too - that's why we gave buses every 10 minutes in Edinburgh but not in Midlothian.

This isn't a crazy idea. This is how the economically productive parts of the UK operate already. Economies of scale were described by Adam Smith, and the Romans and Greeks probably had a good understanding of it too.

Unfortunately it's not in the private interests of developers, so you end up with these enormous estates miles away from anything.

100 years ago, the Metropolitan and Southern Railways built stations before the local housing was constructed. An example is Albany Park. We should do it again.

There is a plan for that at Tempsford i.e. where the new East West line from Oxford to Cambridge crosses the ECML - how far it gets not a clue but it should be the town of at least 100,000...

The problem with high density schemes, which in an urban environment necessitates apartment blocks is this:

Service charges.

They can in themselves be a small mortgage payment each month.

It’s all very well having huge apartment blocks as they have been building around Tottenham Hale station for a few years now, but 30 storey buildings will need quite a bit of maintenance and care.
.
I’m not against this proposal but without reform of leasehold tenures and associated governance of management companies there may end up being alot of buyer remorse.

I think most of us think the classic Victorian tenement works quite well for most of the UK. 8-12 flats. England needs to bin it's leasehold system though, no doubt.

In London where this will have the most effect (due to the sheer number of stations and demand) no developer will ever propose (or local authority approve ) 8-12 flats on a parcel of land.

A perfect example of this policy is Tottenham Hale. And not to mention Meridian Water further up the line. Take a look one day, or someone else on here can confirm. The apartment buildings are monsters. 500 apartments in one skyscraper maybe?

They are. My son has just moved into one of them in Tottenham Hale. He is renting. No idea what he is paying. I was quite impressed with it, but then it is brand new. Overlooks the canal and spitting distance to the station. His girlfriend is a fellow at Cambridge and he has just left Cambridge to work in London. Both their commutes are easy.

One thing I have noted (against Leon's pronouncements on London) is how really rough areas in the past are now quite nice. A friend's son has just moved into Leytonstone. It used to be very rough. Now it is really nice.

Back on topic:

Any result which does not have Welsh Labour first is a very good result for Wales and possibly a very good result for Welsh Labour given how tired and inept they have become.

If Labour lose control in Wales they may be out of power for a generation. The lobbying organisations will cosy up to whoever wins and Labour will find that they have less influence in the media and with NGOs. In Scotland, Labour’s only remaining area of influence is in the still overwhelmingly pro union media. I don’t know what the Welsh media position is; can anyone advise? Also, voters will realise that other parties are actually capable of running an administration, although it will be up to the winning parties to prove they are capable and not partisan or divisive. The SNP did this from 2007 to 2014, before deteriorating. Can Plaid or Reform do the same?

On your other point, it will depend on what sort of government the winning party, whoever it is, can cobble together. Plaid I think possibly could, by judicious use of the right mix of cabinet members and contacts. Whether they would is another question - my instinct is Rhun ap Iorwerth would at least try, and be able to sell it to his activists as governing for Wales and the Welsh people as a whole. Reform wouldn't be able to, or want to. The only party that might talk to them is the Tories and they wouldn't touch them with a forty foot pole if they didn't want to suffer a Cleggasm Mark II.

One of the big mistakes of Labour is that in the last fifteen years they've been increasingly overt about governing only for the benefit of themselves and their supporters. It's one reason they need booting out (that, and the level of talent in the party being somewhat lower than that of the average MTG fan group).

A Plaid-Liberal Democrat coalition willing to negotiate with the Tories on key points would probably be best for Wales. Would it happen? Who knows. If there's one thing I've learned from watching Welsh politics is that parties other than Labour usually flatter to deceive.

The best option for Wales would be for the Greens and Lib Dems to win enough seats to support Plaid without them needing Labour or Conservative support.

Back on topic:

Any result which does not have Welsh Labour first is a very good result for Wales and possibly a very good result for Welsh Labour given how tired and inept they have become.

If Labour lose control in Wales they may be out of power for a generation. The lobbying organisations will cosy up to whoever wins and Labour will find that they have less influence in the media and with NGOs. In Scotland, Labour’s only remaining area of influence is in the still overwhelmingly pro union media. I don’t know what the Welsh media position is; can anyone advise? Also, voters will realise that other parties are actually capable of running an administration, although it will be up to the winning parties to prove they are capable and not partisan or divisive. The SNP did this from 2007 to 2014, before deteriorating. Can Plaid or Reform do the same?

If they drop as far as that it's hard to see a way back for them in a century, never mind a generation.

The Welsh media is minimal because of the small market. The only major news organisation is essentially BBC Wales. That does tend to slant pro-Labour being based in Cardiff and drawn muchly from the Valleys, but it's not a law of physics - many of its staff are Welsh-speaking by policy and therefore tacitly or overtly sympathise with Plaid. Rhun ap Iorwerth himself worked for the BBC for years before entering politics (and very good he was too). Guto Harri worked for them before joining Massive Johnson in Downing Street.