They used to weigh the Scottish Labour vote in Scotland 28 years ago too, its why Gordon Brown pushed for devolution in Scotland and Wales, he hoped to create two Labour fiefdoms what ever the political party was in Government at Westminster. Sadly they created in fact three devolved Parliaments that were never fit for purpose or ever going to have a governing administration that was ever going to be anywhere near as accountable as the the Government at Westminster with a Parliament and second chamber and a Speaker of the House of Commons that had the powers to hold them to account. Holyrood right now is a complete joke and not fit for purporse after 18 years with the SNP in charge.

But that is down to the last Labour Government in charge at Westminster who originally delivered devolution. The sad thing is that I may not have voted for it, but I really wanted it to work and I still do. But when you create a devolved Parliament where the governing party and their FM and their Cabinet Ministers behaviour are totally unaccountable and untouchable no matter how badly they behave, you turn that administration into a banana republic. And the London political journalists should take a good long hard look at what they have ignored in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland while they threw genuine and well deserved indepth scrutiny at the governments at Westminster in the last 28 years. Talk about two tier journalistic reporting!!

There is absolutely no genuine safe guards in our devolved governments and that includes the very ineffectual local media and TV news. Up here in Scotland if there is a big Westminster government scandal it gets wall to wall coverage, but when it comes to Holyrood, tumble weed or no coverage at all.....

surely it should be up to the Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast placed journalists to be scrutinising the devolved parliaments, rather than crying about folk in London

Quite. They do, so I can't understand what this is all about.

It doesn't help however that the quality of the media has deteriorated generally and that the newspapers are all so Unionist that any balance gets lost - the National being the exception; by the nature of such things, it often makes good points not covered by the other media, but again it's no substitute for the old Scotsman and Herald which were far more balanced and which I would much rather have than the current setup.

Problem I found with the Scotsman/Herald is they were more central belt orientated papers rather than covering the whole of Scotland

Point taken. I often used to buy the West Highland Free Press and watch Eòrpa to get at least something of a different perspective.

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.)

That’s the will of a well funded lobby group/special interest group for you.

Our railway station has plenty of homes within a 15 minute walk of it, cannot imagine where else they could build by it round here apart from a few small pieces of derilict land.

Er, buy up the homes with gardens, or just the gardens, and knock them down? Seriously, that would be the implication of an incautious implementation of a local free for all.

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.

WHICH BIT OF THE NO DISCUSSION OF THE GROOMING STORY DO PBers NOT UNDERSTAND?

THE SPAM TRAP HAS BEEN UPDATED, DON’T MOAN IF YOU FIND YOURSELVES BANNED.

Hi TSE, I have no wish to be banned but as a long standing female poster on this site from the early days who was once a young lassie who has spent her whole life trying to make sure I was safe in the work place and elsewhere and who has recently found the hill I am prepared to die on that crosses political lines when it comes to defending women only safe spaces, why can't we talk about something that has had such a huge and traumatic impact on so young women in so many communities and is currently just about one of the the biggest political stories right across the UK?! Are we saying on this site we simple ignore this huge scandal and the current implications for political parties and how they all deal with it?!

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.)

Ben Houchen might be a wrong-un shock?

Auditors have identified a catalogue of financial reporting errors at the public body run by England’s only Conservative metro mayor, the latest setback to Lord Ben Houchen and his Tees Valley Combined Authority.

EY confirmed that it would be unable to sign off on the 2024-25 accounts at TVCA as a result, saying the errors included “material misstatements” that were evident simply from reading the document.

Loans made by TVCA without proper accounting include to Teesside Airport whose financing is so opaque no-one knows what's going on. Meanwhile certain developers are doing well out of the heavily indebted Authority.

https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3maau7zwai226