Best Of

Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.

Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25703365.moray-council-objects-186-kilometre-ssen-powerline/?ref=eb&nid=1948&block=article_block_a&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=161225

Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)

It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.

'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.

Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.

Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”

[...]

Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.

He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'

SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.

PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.

Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.

This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.

https://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/project-planned-areas/?projectId={6e129490-ccf0-4fff-af42-9e8b156f7cca}

Aha. A Political No.

We know them well down here.

Where do Planning Appeals go in Scotland?

SG, unless a Local Review by a convened board of local councillors fopr small scale stuff, I believe.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-appeals-guide/

Often decided by a designated Reporter.

'The vast majority of appeals are considered and decided by Scottish Government reporters. The reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers to make the decision on their behalf.

A very small number of appeals are not delegated to reporters for decision; but instead are 'recalled' by Scottish Ministers who will then make the final decision themselves. In those cases, the appeal will still be examined by a reporter, who will then write a report and make a recommendation for Ministers to consider before they make their decision. Ministers do not have to agree with the reporter's recommendation.'

Is the service statutorily independent, like the Planning Inspectorate, who are required to rule according to law and precedent, which means that political interventions (see Bungalow Bob Jenrick) are at least clearly seen?

IANAE but it sounds similar - see this from SPICe (the Westminster equivalent being the HoC Library):

https://spice-spotlight.scot/2025/05/20/planning-appeals-in-scotland/

Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?

My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.

Interesting, that latter point.

The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.

Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?

In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.

The law of unintended consequences.

And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.

We offer lower grade entry to kids from poor backgrounds (essentially based on the postcode being in a deprived area).

We have an "Access to Medicine" course for such applicants as a 6th year of Med School. They have to meet the same academic standards when on the course.

I am mid-interview cycle for our applicants and recently I have been thinking on Bourdieu's concept of Social Reproduction in terms of our Medical School entry, and I think it remains presemt despite our efforts. I am not quite sure where we should go next.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_reproduction#:~:text=All four of Pierre Bourdieu,the system of social stratification.

I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.

As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.

For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.

What do you think?

Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.

Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.

He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.

You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next.
None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.

Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.

I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.

Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.

And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".

When you have seen how Trump has behaved do you not have any sympathy for Biden’s decision to protect his son?

It was wrong from a presidential perspective (I worried about the precedent but… well… ) but as a man it was completely understandable

I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.

As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.

For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.

What do you think?

Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.

Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.

He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.

You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next.
None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.

Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.

I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.

After four years of Trump, the Democrats need to find a unifying candidate. Harris isn’t that person.

I don't think Harris is the best choice for the Democrats in 2028, but I don't think it's fair to say she can't be a unifying candidate. She's in the middle of some of the party's internal debates. She has some gravitas as a former VP and candidate. She would be more of a unifying candidate than Newsom or AOC, two other names mentioned in this discussion.

Also, do the Democrats need to find a unifying candidate? The Republicans didn't win in 2024 with a unifying candidate. They won with about the least unifying candidate in the history of US Presidential elections. Maybe the Democrats need a firebrand candidate who's good on social media (a role AOC and Newsom are both auditioning for). Whoever they pick, the Republicans and Musk's Twitter will pump out the claim that they are a dangerous woke obsessed radical!

If Trump and Vance's approval rating is below 45% in 2028 the Democrats will likely win the presidency whoever they nominate.

If Trump gets his approval rating back up to 45-50% then they likely need a centrist charismatic candidate to have a chance

If the Democrats think they can just pick whoever they want because Trump's ratings are poor there is a good chance they will lose.

You'd think they might try a safety first approach but that doesn't seem to be their mentality right now. If the Republicans can win with a divider why can't we?

Yes and as I said if Trump's ratings remain under 45% even AOC could probably win in 2028

Why "even"? I think the analysis of candidates as being more or less centrist worked in the past, but maybe today's electorate is more concerned with the charismatic social-media-savvy candidate, and AOC is good there.

Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.

If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.

Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't help

With the support of his cabinet and the Dem establishment.

Compare how the cabinet and MPs forced Boris out here to the lickspittle loyalty Buttigieg and the others showed to Biden.

Yes and forcing Boris out led to a landslide Labour victory and loss of the all the Conservative redwall seats, Biden I suspect would still have done better in the rustbelt than Harris did as he did in 2020

Boris was on a bizarre journey of self-destruction, he would never had lasted to 2024.

What you Conservatives need to ask yourselves is why you never made any attempt to control Boris's behaviour as PM.

Because they thought his behaviour attracted voters from the red wall.

When Boris was the outsider sticking it to the establishment he could attract support from the people.

When he became the establishment sticking it to the people the dynamic had fundamentally changed.

At that point he had to follow his own laws and be seen to be doing so.

Dura lex, sed lex as Boris should have known.

Our University sector is very strong but in a serious financial situation having over expanded and having become too reliant on overseas students. Right now we are seeing waves of redundancies and possible closures. Is Erasmus really the best use for £570m? How many people in the UK will be denied a University education from that choice?

My daughter did a year in the Netherlands with Erasmus. She enjoyed it immensely but the longer term benefits are a lot less clear. It was also interesting to see her cohort. I think she was definitely one of the poorer participants and the weighting to privileged private school kids was very high.

Interesting, that latter point.

The Scottish universities' admissions policies is weighted to favour applicants from less successful schools in Scotland. So you can get in with lower grades.

Sounds like it might help kids from poorer or less supportive backgrounds?

In fact, in the town I know well, it works in favour of the kids who have parents who pay for private tuition. Pretty well all the kids who have been offered places at the "ancients" (St Andrews, Edinburgh etc) have been tutored to pass the exams they need for medicine, law, etc.

The law of unintended consequences.

And, of course, the free tuition fees, which are supposed to help disadvantaged kinds is, actually, overwhelmingly trousered by well-to-do middle-class families.

£570mn a year for Erasmus?! I see the Chagos negotiators have already found a new job in government.

We need a comparator on that.

The requested contribution for 2021 that the UK Govt walked away from was £600 million per annum: *

Under Erasmus+, the UK already contributed significantly more than we got out in the form of receipts, and the only terms of offer for continued participation would have required an annual gross contribution of £600 million, or a net contribution in the region of £2 billion over the course of the programme.

£600 million a year in 2027 with 2021->2027 inflation of 30% (about right) would be £780 million pro-rata, so £570 million is a like for like reduction of 27%.

Is that a good deal? I think that probably depends on how well we fill our quota of 100k students.

Back in 2020 there was funding for 55.7k students to be involved, and we sent 10k and received 16k. It's up to us to use it fully. I think in that case it will be good value, especially in undermining the xenophobia that poisons our politics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4ng7ee9vwo

* https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-07-12/HL1883/

It's not a zero sum game anyway - just as with our membership of the EU.
There's cake in hosting the best and brightest from the continent - and vice versa.

It's the little Britainers who oppose such deals.

Re the recent discussion of Nimbyism not being specifically a LD thing, here are some Tory Nimbies [edit] objecting to a major UK-wide project - in comparison the SNP ones are trying to go for mitigation.

Slightly surprisingly, the Tory lead Nimby is quoting from Burns' words on Edward of England and Bannockburn, though tbf I'm not quite sure if he realises it.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25703365.moray-council-objects-186-kilometre-ssen-powerline/?ref=eb&nid=1948&block=article_block_a&u=f140ec39d500193051a33e140c12bd95&date=161225

Which Tory is it? And what's the quote? (Paywalled, I'm afraid)

It's Moray Council in re the Beauly to Peterhead overhead powerline.

'A debate over the 186-kilometre overhead transmission line today, Tuesday December 16, resulted in councillors voting 9-4 in favour of the objection.

Councillor Marc Macrae (Fochabers Lhanbryde, Conservative) seconded his party colleague councillor David Gordon (Speyside Glenlivet), who put forward an amendment to raise an objection to SSEN’s application.

Macrae said: “SSEN put the mental in environmental. This is vandalism of our countryside.”

[...]

Macrae explained that the motion wasn’t necessarily a rejection, but a chance for the applicant to propose something better.

He added: “We should send them (SSEN) home to think again.”'

SSEN is ofr course Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Not clear if there is agreement within the whole SNP group.

PS And I gave wrong credit for the song! It is of course Roy Williamson of the Corries.

Have had some contact with T & D guys (Transmission and Distribution) over the years and this is a common issue with any new Grid installation. People always want the lines (400kv?) buried but don't accept that there will be significant environmental damage and cost if you do bury it. I also know the area well as my OH is from there and beautiful as it is, it's not that special.

This sort of nimbyism is not specific to any party, nor is it specific to this country. A few brown envelopes have been known (allegedly) to smooth the way but it's illegal in this country AIUI.

https://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/project-planned-areas/?projectId={6e129490-ccf0-4fff-af42-9e8b156f7cca}

Aha. A Political No.

We know them well down here.

Where do Planning Appeals go in Scotland?

SG, unless a Local Review by a convened board of local councillors fopr small scale stuff, I believe.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-appeals-guide/

Often decided by a designated Reporter.

'The vast majority of appeals are considered and decided by Scottish Government reporters. The reporter is appointed by Scottish Ministers to make the decision on their behalf.

A very small number of appeals are not delegated to reporters for decision; but instead are 'recalled' by Scottish Ministers who will then make the final decision themselves. In those cases, the appeal will still be examined by a reporter, who will then write a report and make a recommendation for Ministers to consider before they make their decision. Ministers do not have to agree with the reporter's recommendation.'