Quite obviously Johnson has never had any intention of honouring his "oven ready deal".
No government should trust him, not even our own.
The Swedish and Finnish governments don't seem to agree with you.
Somehow doubt they are putting their trust in Boris Johnson.
More like, in the "Demented Vegetable".
Betting that, even if (God forbid!) 45 regains the White House, even he isn't Cnut enough to turn back the tide.
If 45 gets the nomination (he will), he's a shoo in. He will be 47. Biden has even worse favourables than he did, Harris is even worse than that, they will get destroyed in November and it's all head winds from here. He'll break 350 in the college. Parent led conservative backlash in the US, school board elections are showing the direction of travel. Wokism has overplayed its hand there big time.
Just my opinion of course but put the farm on 45 for 24
Bridget is an interesting wildcard choice, she has impressed me of late. Think she will hold her seat handily although I do take Woolie’s point.
I like Streets but I do think the party will want a lady this time.
'Bridget; is an Oxford-educated typical middle-class public sector leftie. There is a reason her majority has been dropping aka she doesn't relate well to her constituents.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
Oxford is ok, it's those Cambridge tossers that are the problem.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
Candidate status seems the least that could be done and pretty easy. Membership itself, sure, the EU will want to take time, but if there's will and support decades seems pessimistic.
Bridget is an interesting wildcard choice, she has impressed me of late. Think she will hold her seat handily although I do take Woolie’s point.
I like Streets but I do think the party will want a lady this time.
I've not looked at the boundary proposals in Sunderland tbf, that may make her Job much easier Quick peek suggests she takes the Washingtin and Sunderland SW swat more easily and my speculative gain would be central
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
Oxford is ok, it's those Cambridge tossers that are the problem.
PB Tories will have to put pitchforks down for the moment
I mean it's within MoE of the only other 2 polls released since the elections last week. Labour share solidly in the 38ish range, Tory share 33ish looks about right
Fair point and objective not what you heard from the PB Tories of course
Hello Horse, do I fall into your category of PB Tories ?
PB Tories will have to put pitchforks down for the moment
I mean it's within MoE of the only other 2 polls released since the elections last week. Labour share solidly in the 38ish range, Tory share 33ish looks about right
Fair point and objective not what you heard from the PB Tories of course
Hello Horse, do I fall into your category of PB Tories ?
No idea. But you are a nice chap as always despite the bullying you continue to face for no good reason.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
Oxford is ok, it's those Cambridge tossers that are the problem.
We could stretch to Hull, of course.
Certainly far better than Cambridge. Even Wolverhampton Uni would be better.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
Some issues with Streeting (who I like): London MP. Second referendum campaigner. Ex-NUS president. Worked for Stonewall. Nandy: Wigan MP. Against a second referendum. Wanted Brexit done (soft version). So Streeting would be easier for the right wing press to attack than Nandy.
Labour members will never vote for Nandy for that reason, she is too Brexity, hence she got just 16% in 2020 from them.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
Some issues with Streeting (who I like): London MP. Second referendum campaigner. Ex-NUS president. Worked for Stonewall. Nandy: Wigan MP. Against a second referendum. Wanted Brexit done (soft version). So Streeting would be easier for the right wing press to attack than Nandy.
Labour members will never vote for Nandy for that reason, she is too Brexity, hence she got just 16% in 2020 from them.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
PB Tories will have to put pitchforks down for the moment
I mean it's within MoE of the only other 2 polls released since the elections last week. Labour share solidly in the 38ish range, Tory share 33ish looks about right
Fair point and objective not what you heard from the PB Tories of course
Hello Horse, do I fall into your category of PB Tories ?
No idea. But you are a nice chap as always despite the bullying you continue to face for no good reason.
Thank you Horse, you are also a very decent person. Despite our obvious political differences, it is good to know that we can respect each others point of view.
If they win in 2024 Labour need to ask why because they really should walk it
Labour need to show that they have ideas. Time is running out for that. It’s fine up to a point to keep your powder dry, but at some point they need to start looking like a government in waiting. What does Keir do on day 1?
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
What's wrong with butter chicken?
No idea but my favourite curry venue once refused to serve me it, as too bland for me. Genuinely.
I remember asking a waiter in the legendary Wong Kei* for the same as a Chinese chap was having at the next table. "You don't want that" he said, as he walked off.
The service there was incredible. In the unbelievable sense!
*it used to revel in its reputation as the rudest restaraunt in London, but has gone soft now.
PB Tories will have to put pitchforks down for the moment
I mean it's within MoE of the only other 2 polls released since the elections last week. Labour share solidly in the 38ish range, Tory share 33ish looks about right
Fair point and objective not what you heard from the PB Tories of course
Hello Horse, do I fall into your category of PB Tories ?
No idea. But you are a nice chap as always despite the bullying you continue to face for no good reason.
Thank you Horse, you are also a very decent person. Despite our obvious political differences, it is good to know that we can respect each others point of view.
I have great respect for people that air their views in the way you do.
I am sure there is no coincidence you have awful abuse just as HYUFD does. It is because you will argue your point coherently and without shouting.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
Oxford is ok, it's those Cambridge tossers that are the problem.
We could stretch to Hull, of course.
Starmer went to Leeds if that helps?
It was more a Blackadder reference, but if I’m explaining I’m losing...
The problem with Brexit in its current state is this government has made a conscious decision to not even give a few scraps to the 48%.
The problem with Brexit is the 52% got fuck all either.
More expensive food.
More immigrants.
More red tape.
It's almost like the whole thing was a crock of shit all along...
Food prices:
I doubt the lower food inflation is brexit-related, but it is lower.
Good God. Facts?
Watch Scott's head explode in 3,2,1......
Nah, he has filters that carefully screen out anything that doesn’t agree with his view of Brexit.
I always think of Scott as hiding in his bunker Downfall-style waiting for Steiner's - sorry, the Remainers' - army to come to his rescue and save the day.
The government is dropping new proposed zonal planning laws which would have allowed automatic development and also scrapping legally binding housing targets.
Instead Gove will give local communities more control over planning in their area, including the layout of new developments and the materials to be used.
The u turn follows significant losses to LDs and Independents and Greens in recent local elections in the Home Counties, as well as the loss of the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary by election last year to the LDs
I thought they'd dropped that already months ago when Jenrik was sacked.
Councils and public will love no legally binding housing targets, but how on earth is the housing needed going to be built if the government makes it easier to resist developments? A lot of the planning system is about rules that mean permission should be granted even if local people don't want it, as you won't build enough just by what people want.
As for the planning system being digitized, 'making plans more accessible online' as far as I know planners put it all online already anyway. Some applications will have hundreds of documents.
Local communities deciding housing targets based on local need, not concreting all over the greenbelt via Whitehall diktat
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
Some issues with Streeting (who I like): London MP. Second referendum campaigner. Ex-NUS president. Worked for Stonewall. Nandy: Wigan MP. Against a second referendum. Wanted Brexit done (soft version). So Streeting would be easier for the right wing press to attack than Nandy.
Labour members will never vote for Nandy for that reason, she is too Brexity, hence she got just 16% in 2020 from them.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
If they win in 2024 Labour need to ask why because they really should walk it
Labour need to show that they have ideas. Time is running out for that. It’s fine up to a point to keep your powder dry, but at some point they need to start looking like a government in waiting. What does Keir do on day 1?
I don't expect detail, but some vague ideas would be nice.
The problem with Brexit in its current state is this government has made a conscious decision to not even give a few scraps to the 48%.
The problem with Brexit is the 52% got fuck all either.
More expensive food.
More immigrants.
More red tape.
It's almost like the whole thing was a crock of shit all along...
Food prices:
I doubt the lower food inflation is brexit-related, but it is lower.
Good God. Facts?
Watch Scott's head explode in 3,2,1......
Nah, he has filters that carefully screen out anything that doesn’t agree with his view of Brexit.
I always think of Scott as hiding in his bunker Downfall-style waiting for Steiner's - sorry, the Remainers' - army to come to his rescue and save the day.
He does seem VERY upset. Way more than most, even to political obsessives on pb.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
What's wrong with butter chicken?
No idea but my favourite curry venue once refused to serve me it, as too bland for me. Genuinely.
The government is dropping new proposed zonal planning laws which would have allowed automatic development and also scrapping legally binding housing targets.
Instead Gove will give local communities more control over planning in their area, including the layout of new developments and the materials to be used.
The u turn follows significant losses to LDs and Independents and Greens in recent local elections in the Home Counties, as well as the loss of the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary by election last year to the LDs
I thought they'd dropped that already months ago when Jenrik was sacked.
Councils and public will love no legally binding housing targets, but how on earth is the housing needed going to be built if the government makes it easier to resist developments? A lot of the planning system is about rules that mean permission should be granted even if local people don't want it, as you won't build enough just by what people want.
As for the planning system being digitized, 'making plans more accessible online' as far as I know planners put it all online already anyway. Some applications will have hundreds of documents.
Local communities deciding housing targets based on local need, not concreting all over the greenbelt via Whitehall diktat
Right, so virtually no housing being built? (leaving aside the difference between building on Green Belt and just building on fields, which is what people often mean).
No one likes approving housing, because voters don't like it where it happens, but there is a reason governments of both types have had rules to encourage it happening, rather than discourage it.
So what's the plan? Presumably they still want plenty of housing, and your own experience on a council surely shows local communities will approve as little as possible in most cases if they can, so what's the answer?
I'm not trying to trick you, I just can't see how the aim of more housing is planned to be achieved - no one liked the previous proposals, but they went down that route presumably out of desperation at the need to build more.
If they win in 2024 Labour need to ask why because they really should walk it
Labour need to show that they have ideas. Time is running out for that. It’s fine up to a point to keep your powder dry, but at some point they need to start looking like a government in waiting. What does Keir do on day 1?
I don't expect detail, but some vague ideas would be nice.
Is the median voter not a little scared of ideas after a decade of ideas. They got austerity, coalition, Brexit and a glimpse of socialism. E.g. it looks like the government is accepting that there is no idea about housing that will win more votes than it loses.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
Nah. They have "unattractive" accents. The Oxbridge ones are "too posh". Vote Tory. No one else is right and proper.
Good thanks. Aside of too much time chatting rubbish on pb of course. On a windfall tax I can see the attraction in the short term, but there are downsides. How do we make energy affordable in 2023, 2024 etc. And should I, and the other well off folk on pb get help that we probably dont need, or should it go to Brenda who rides a bus to stay warm?
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Good thanks. Aside of too much time chatting rubbish on pb of course. On a windfall tax I can see the attraction in the short term, but there are downsides. How do we make energy affordable in 2023, 2024 etc. And should I, and the other well off folk on pb get help that we probably dont need, or should it go to Brenda who rides a bus to stay warm?
Tubbs you make excellent posts, some of the best here.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
FFS can't we look a little wider afield than oxbridge tossers?
Nah. They have "unattractive" accents. The Oxbridge ones are "too posh". Vote Tory. No one else is right and proper.
As OGH frequently reminds us the last non Oxbridge leader to win a general election against an Oxbridge educated leader was Churchill in 1951 v Attlee but then Churchill went to the superior public school, Harrow to Attlee's Haileybury, even if Churchill unlike Attlee did not go to Oxford.
Plus of course Attlee did beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950
The government is dropping new proposed zonal planning laws which would have allowed automatic development and also scrapping legally binding housing targets.
Instead Gove will give local communities more control over planning in their area, including the layout of new developments and the materials to be used.
The u turn follows significant losses to LDs and Independents and Greens in recent local elections in the Home Counties, as well as the loss of the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary by election last year to the LDs
I thought they'd dropped that already months ago when Jenrik was sacked.
Councils and public will love no legally binding housing targets, but how on earth is the housing needed going to be built if the government makes it easier to resist developments? A lot of the planning system is about rules that mean permission should be granted even if local people don't want it, as you won't build enough just by what people want.
As for the planning system being digitized, 'making plans more accessible online' as far as I know planners put it all online already anyway. Some applications will have hundreds of documents.
Local communities deciding housing targets based on local need, not concreting all over the greenbelt via Whitehall diktat
Right, so virtually no housing being built? (leaving aside the difference between building on Green Belt and just building on fields, which is what people often mean).
No one likes approving housing, because voters don't like it where it happens, but there is a reason governments of both types have had rules to encourage it happening, rather than discourage it.
So what's the plan? Presumably they still want plenty of housing, and your own experience on a council surely shows local communities will approve as little as possible in most cases if they can, so what's the answer?
I'm not trying to trick you, I just can't see how the aim of more housing is planned to be achieved - no one liked the previous proposals, but they went down that route presumably out of desperation at the need to build more.
£1k in the pocket of each councillor for each house they approve to be built.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
Some issues with Streeting (who I like): London MP. Second referendum campaigner. Ex-NUS president. Worked for Stonewall. Nandy: Wigan MP. Against a second referendum. Wanted Brexit done (soft version). So Streeting would be easier for the right wing press to attack than Nandy.
Labour members will never vote for Nandy for that reason, she is too Brexity, hence she got just 16% in 2020 from them.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
Nah Brexit is irrelevant. She’s just crap
I remember overhearing/eavesdropping on some Labour Party members in a pub in Manchester, January 2020, discussing the leadership. All of them loved Nandy. "She's not a leader, though, is she?" No one demurred. FWIW, the consensus back then was Starmer, though without enthusiasm. Though obviously one table at a pub is not representative of the party at large.
If I was Labour I'd go for Bridget Phillipson. Though please Bridget, tone the lipstick down! (This is a personal thing. I've realised, rather belatedly in life, that what I feel is not a simple dislike for lipstick on a woman, but an actual feeling of physical revulsion. I don't know if I'm unique in this.)
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
The government is dropping new proposed zonal planning laws which would have allowed automatic development and also scrapping legally binding housing targets.
Instead Gove will give local communities more control over planning in their area, including the layout of new developments and the materials to be used.
The u turn follows significant losses to LDs and Independents and Greens in recent local elections in the Home Counties, as well as the loss of the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary by election last year to the LDs
I thought they'd dropped that already months ago when Jenrik was sacked.
Councils and public will love no legally binding housing targets, but how on earth is the housing needed going to be built if the government makes it easier to resist developments? A lot of the planning system is about rules that mean permission should be granted even if local people don't want it, as you won't build enough just by what people want.
As for the planning system being digitized, 'making plans more accessible online' as far as I know planners put it all online already anyway. Some applications will have hundreds of documents.
Local communities deciding housing targets based on local need, not concreting all over the greenbelt via Whitehall diktat
Right, so virtually no housing being built? (leaving aside the difference between building on Green Belt and just building on fields, which is what people often mean).
No one likes approving housing, because voters don't like it where it happens, but there is a reason governments of both types have had rules to encourage it happening, rather than discourage it.
So what's the plan? Presumably they still want plenty of housing, and your own experience on a council surely shows local communities will approve as little as possible in most cases if they can, so what's the answer?
I'm not trying to trick you, I just can't see how the aim of more housing is planned to be achieved - no one liked the previous proposals, but they went down that route presumably out of desperation at the need to build more.
It has already come through each council producing local plans setting out housing targets in their area for the next decade or two and where it will go
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
Mitterrand had the same fears and his wheeze of tying a united Germany down by getting it to commit to the Euro may not have turned out as he hoped.
There definitely seems to be some out there with a trust issue that staff working from are, you know, working. Years ago a family friend, who lives on Hayling Island, worked for an IoW firm. Mostly wfh, but once every couple of weeks would actually cross the water. Had a fantastic relationship with the boss. All good, excellent work done. You can see where it’s going. New boss, no worry from home. Not long before excellent worker leaves the firm. Depressing to think the UK government thinks like this.
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
Some issues with Streeting (who I like): London MP. Second referendum campaigner. Ex-NUS president. Worked for Stonewall. Nandy: Wigan MP. Against a second referendum. Wanted Brexit done (soft version). So Streeting would be easier for the right wing press to attack than Nandy.
Labour members will never vote for Nandy for that reason, she is too Brexity, hence she got just 16% in 2020 from them.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
Nah Brexit is irrelevant. She’s just crap
I remember overhearing/eavesdropping on some Labour Party members in a pub in Manchester, January 2020, discussing the leadership. All of them loved Nandy. "She's not a leader, though, is she?" No one demurred. FWIW, the consensus back then was Starmer, though without enthusiasm. Though obviously one table at a pub is not representative of the party at large.
If I was Labour I'd go for Bridget Phillipson. Though please Bridget, tone the lipstick down! (This is a personal thing. I've realised, rather belatedly in life, that what I feel is not a simple dislike for lipstick on a woman, but an actual feeling of physical revulsion. I don't know if I'm unique in this.)
The government is dropping new proposed zonal planning laws which would have allowed automatic development and also scrapping legally binding housing targets.
Instead Gove will give local communities more control over planning in their area, including the layout of new developments and the materials to be used.
The u turn follows significant losses to LDs and Independents and Greens in recent local elections in the Home Counties, as well as the loss of the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary by election last year to the LDs
I thought they'd dropped that already months ago when Jenrik was sacked.
Councils and public will love no legally binding housing targets, but how on earth is the housing needed going to be built if the government makes it easier to resist developments? A lot of the planning system is about rules that mean permission should be granted even if local people don't want it, as you won't build enough just by what people want.
As for the planning system being digitized, 'making plans more accessible online' as far as I know planners put it all online already anyway. Some applications will have hundreds of documents.
Local communities deciding housing targets based on local need, not concreting all over the greenbelt via Whitehall diktat
Right, so virtually no housing being built? (leaving aside the difference between building on Green Belt and just building on fields, which is what people often mean).
No one likes approving housing, because voters don't like it where it happens, but there is a reason governments of both types have had rules to encourage it happening, rather than discourage it.
So what's the plan? Presumably they still want plenty of housing, and your own experience on a council surely shows local communities will approve as little as possible in most cases if they can, so what's the answer?
I'm not trying to trick you, I just can't see how the aim of more housing is planned to be achieved - no one liked the previous proposals, but they went down that route presumably out of desperation at the need to build more.
It has already come through each council producing local plans setting out housing targets in their area for the next decade or two and where it will go
Housing targets that many hated because they were imposed by government (and were only approved on that basis), and which the government is saying they are going to scrap?
Plans are required to be reviewed so often they don't actually last unchanged across the periods set out.
But in essence your plan appears to be 'All councils everywhere have already set out all required housing targets for the next few decades, and that will meet all housing need'?
So are you actually saying the government pledge about legally binding targets being scrapped is meaningless, since it won't take effect for decades?
I'm really confused by your plan - Gove is usually clearer than this, at least to start with.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
You could argue that reunification and expansion of EU easy led to a mad rush to try and get to a United States of Europe in the lifetimes of somewhat elderly politicians.
Said rush created the Greek crisis and BREXIT. Also gave us Orban pissing out the windows. And the current Polish government is a joy to behold…
Given Burnham has suggested he wants to be an MP again at the next general election then if Starmer survives until then and loses, Burnham certainly would be a contender.
However for the moment if say Starmer is fined and has to resign then I would make the second favourite, Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the favourite to succeed him
Streeting is such a non entity politically though. He's butter chicken.
Streeting comes across well, is telegenic, articulate and relatively centrist and also has much more charisma than Starmer.
As a Tory of the above he is the one I would most fear, I also fear Burnham but he is not in Parliament.
Streeting would also be our first Cambridge educated PM since Baldwin, as indeed would Burnham
Some issues with Streeting (who I like): London MP. Second referendum campaigner. Ex-NUS president. Worked for Stonewall. Nandy: Wigan MP. Against a second referendum. Wanted Brexit done (soft version). So Streeting would be easier for the right wing press to attack than Nandy.
Labour members will never vote for Nandy for that reason, she is too Brexity, hence she got just 16% in 2020 from them.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
Nah Brexit is irrelevant. She’s just crap
I remember overhearing/eavesdropping on some Labour Party members in a pub in Manchester, January 2020, discussing the leadership. All of them loved Nandy. "She's not a leader, though, is she?" No one demurred. FWIW, the consensus back then was Starmer, though without enthusiasm. Though obviously one table at a pub is not representative of the party at large.
If I was Labour I'd go for Bridget Phillipson. Though please Bridget, tone the lipstick down! (This is a personal thing. I've realised, rather belatedly in life, that what I feel is not a simple dislike for lipstick on a woman, but an actual feeling of physical revulsion. I don't know if I'm unique in this.)
Hey Cookie! Hope you are well
Hello Horse, yes, I'm well thanks. Knee op 12 days ago and recovery is at the top end of expectations. Completely free of pain (only now do I realise that it was hurting basically all the time before the op) and, joyfully, now sleeping very well indeed. Delighted to hear life off the antidepressants is going well. Progress may not be linear - be prepared to have the odd bad day - but I'm sure the medium-term trend will be in the right direction. Also very pleased to hear of your cricketing progress. :-)
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
I think she is actually quite good. Certainly a better pick than many names mentioned, especially Streeting (Jesus, he is lame).
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
You could argue that reunification and expansion of EU easy led to a mad rush to try and get to a United States of Europe in the lifetimes of somewhat elderly politicians.
Said rush created the Greek crisis and BREXIT. Also gave us Orban pissing out the windows. And the current Polish government is a joy to behold…
Much could be argued, but Thatcher was not a seer. I really doubt her reasoning extended to being able to predict even the generality of events taking places 30 years hence, indeed your own summary of her views was nothing more than simplistic fear that Germany would be more powerful, as if that inevitably would lead, rather tangentially, to crises at the periphery.
Seems no more than the typical over egging of Thatcher's judgement and impact, positive and negative, that thankfully is becoming less frequent over the years.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
I think she is actually quite good. Certainly a better pick than many names mentioned, especially Streeting (Jesus, he is lame).
Yeah. Don't get Streeting at all. He's very young, mind. But not a Party leader as yet. Minor Cabinet role at best. Very bland. He's Starmer without a responsible job on his CV. Got an aversion to Jess Phillips. Can't pin it down. But no. Nandy's feisty without being gratuitously offensive (Rayner) or unnecessarily crude (Phillips).
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
I think she is actually quite good. Certainly a better pick than many names mentioned, especially Streeting (Jesus, he is lame).
Yeah. Don't get Streeting at all. He's very young, mind. But not a Party leader as yet. Minor Cabinet role at best. Very bland. He's Starmer without a responsible job on his CV. Got an aversion to Jess Phillips. Can't pin it down. But no. Nandy's feisty without being gratuitously offensive (Rayner) or unnecessarily crude (Phillips).
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Big reason why Makerfield stayed Labour and Leigh didn't despite slightly worse demographics. Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP. She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town. PS. Streeting has charisma? It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey, that's some statement.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
I think she is actually quite good. Certainly a better pick than many names mentioned, especially Streeting (Jesus, he is lame).
Yeah. Don't get Streeting at all. He's very young, mind. But not a Party leader as yet. Minor Cabinet role at best. Very bland. He's Starmer without a responsible job on his CV. Got an aversion to Jess Phillips. Can't pin it down. But no. Nandy's feisty without being gratuitously offensive (Rayner) or unnecessarily crude (Phillips).
I actually quite like Rayner as well but mainly because she reminds me of my time in the Manchester clubs...
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Nandy's really not Brexity. Just like you, she voted remain. And just like you, she thought the result of the referendum, though disappointing, should be respected.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
I think she is actually quite good. Certainly a better pick than many names mentioned, especially Streeting (Jesus, he is lame).
Yeah. Don't get Streeting at all. He's very young, mind. But not a Party leader as yet. Minor Cabinet role at best. Very bland. He's Starmer without a responsible job on his CV. Got an aversion to Jess Phillips. Can't pin it down. But no. Nandy's feisty without being gratuitously offensive (Rayner) or unnecessarily crude (Phillips).
Nandy is IDS in a skirt
Well, that's someone's fantasy, but I don't want to know whose.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
I suspect Nandy's republicanism is like Starmer's - felt but not really acted upon. It doesn't really feel like a live issue at the moment. And I think a campaign of 'but she's a republican' would look a little odd - like a campaign of 'but she's an atheist'. I think most monarchists are so for pragmatic rather than principled reasons, and don't see republicanism as beyond the pale.
I think her Brexit position is unlikely to alienate too many. Brexity, but looking for pragmatic solutions. Not necessarily to my tastes, but could find favour. I can't be the only one to value consensuality.
Agree on the charisma and gravitas though. And also behind the agreeable facade she occasionally comes out with some quite batty wokery.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
I think she is actually quite good. Certainly a better pick than many names mentioned, especially Streeting (Jesus, he is lame).
Yeah. Don't get Streeting at all. He's very young, mind. But not a Party leader as yet. Minor Cabinet role at best. Very bland. He's Starmer without a responsible job on his CV. Got an aversion to Jess Phillips. Can't pin it down. But no. Nandy's feisty without being gratuitously offensive (Rayner) or unnecessarily crude (Phillips).
I actually quite like Rayner as well but mainly because she reminds me of my time in the Manchester clubs...
I really rate Nandy. Which probably means she is finished.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Come on @HYUFD, Burnham and Streeting have charisma? I'll accept all your other posts on why a 10 point deficit is good for the Tories but that's a comment too far
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Big reason why Makerfield stayed Labour and Leigh didn't despite slightly worse demographics. Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP. She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town. PS. Streeting has charisma? It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey.
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
Good broadband is anywhere now - see Starlink. Time zones can be +-2, easily.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Big reason why Makerfield stayed Labour and Leigh didn't despite slightly worse demographics. Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP. She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town. PS. Streeting has charisma? It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey.
I thought Makerfield was Yvonne Forvague (sp?) Or is that your point - Lisa's charms not only win her own seat but her neighbours' too?
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
I don't understand the mindset of working from home. To me home should be a work-free place. But I'm obviously out of touch with the times.
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
I don't understand the mindset of working from home. To me home should be a work-free place. But I'm obviously out of touch with the times.
That's my preference as well, but I can understand the conveniences for many people around issues of commuting, school runs etc, especially if they have a decent amount of space. Even I will occasionally make use of the flexibility.
My main concern is some are so keen on WFH that they ignore or trivialise any concerns, as if nothing could possibly be done better in person. Rottenborough touches upon some of those issues.
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
"I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge,"
Personally FWIW I think this is awful and utterly depressing if true that people would rather stay at home and only meet work mates once a month or so.
Atomisation.
And of course only available to the laptop class of society.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
You could argue that reunification and expansion of EU easy led to a mad rush to try and get to a United States of Europe in the lifetimes of somewhat elderly politicians.
Said rush created the Greek crisis and BREXIT. Also gave us Orban pissing out the windows. And the current Polish government is a joy to behold…
Much could be argued, but Thatcher was not a seer. I really doubt her reasoning extended to being able to predict even the generality of events taking places 30 years hence, indeed your own summary of her views was nothing more than simplistic fear that Germany would be more powerful, as if that inevitably would lead, rather tangentially, to crises at the periphery.
Seems no more than the typical over egging of Thatcher's judgement and impact, positive and negative, that thankfully is becoming less frequent over the years.
The problem - which she foresaw - was that the dynamic of Europe changed from U.K., France and West Germany as kinda-equal, to German being the biggest.
We have just seen the latest fallout of that dominance - Germany pushed for Russian gas, despite many others in Europe saying hang on. Only Putin managed to stop Nord Stream ….
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Big reason why Makerfield stayed Labour and Leigh didn't despite slightly worse demographics. Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP. She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town. PS. Streeting has charisma? It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey, that's some statement.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
I suspect Nandy's republicanism is like Starmer's - felt but not really acted upon. It doesn't really feel like a live issue at the moment. And I think a campaign of 'but she's a republican' would look a little odd - like a campaign of 'but she's an atheist'. I think most monarchists are so for pragmatic rather than principled reasons, and don't see republicanism as beyond the pale.
I think her Brexit position is unlikely to alienate too many. Brexity, but looking for pragmatic solutions. Not necessarily to my tastes, but could find favour. I can't be the only one to value consensuality.
Agree on the charisma and gravitas though. And also behind the agreeable facade she occasionally comes out with some quite batty wokery.
Starmer has now said he backs a reformed monarchy. Even Long Bailey said she supported the monarchy in the Labour leadership debate as has Rayner but Nandy said she was a republican and that is instant cannon fodder for Tory election broadcasts in Middle England to tie her in with Corbynism, Corbyn also being a republican
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
You could argue that reunification and expansion of EU easy led to a mad rush to try and get to a United States of Europe in the lifetimes of somewhat elderly politicians.
Said rush created the Greek crisis and BREXIT. Also gave us Orban pissing out the windows. And the current Polish government is a joy to behold…
Much could be argued, but Thatcher was not a seer. I really doubt her reasoning extended to being able to predict even the generality of events taking places 30 years hence, indeed your own summary of her views was nothing more than simplistic fear that Germany would be more powerful, as if that inevitably would lead, rather tangentially, to crises at the periphery.
Seems no more than the typical over egging of Thatcher's judgement and impact, positive and negative, that thankfully is becoming less frequent over the years.
The problem - which she foresaw - was that the dynamic of Europe changed from U.K., France and West Germany as kinda-equal, to German being the biggest.
We have just seen the latest fallout of that dominance - Germany pushed for Russian gas, despite many others in Europe saying hang on. Only Putin managed to stop Nord Stream ….
She foresaw that if things changed then things would change? What a prognosticator!
I posted this near the end of the last thread; since I got no response, I thought I'd try again:
Okay, so Brexit is done. I'm putting my 'bloke on the Clapham omnibus who voted for Brexit' hat on and asking - what difference has it made to my life? I'm struggling. I'm aware of some downsides, though they don't affect me much. But what are the upsides? Okay, I hear that wages have risen in some, but not that many, low-skilled sectors, but that may be as much due to Covid as Brexit, and anyway I don't work in a low-skilled sector.
So a serious, genuine question. How has Brexit benefitted me, who voted for it? How has my government used these new freedoms/sovereignty to improve my life? If it was such a good idea, people ought to be able to answer this by now, with specific, tangible examples that affect me - but I'm struggling. Help.
Did you get your vaccine? Brexit benefitted you from not being locked into some half-arsed Euro arrangement. It quite possibly saved the life of a friend or family member.
Our being outside was also a spur to the EU to get their shit together. Having Brexit Britain jabbed up whilst the EU's citizens died created a political imperative to shift their arses.
If the Referendum had locked us into ever closer union, I strongly suspect the UK would have been closed down from helping Ukraine to the level we have. We would have been trapped into some EU-wide foot-dragging whilst Kyiv fell.
Plus - Nigel Farage is out of a job. His soap box taken away. Surely that counts for something?
1. I'd have got my vaccine if we'd still been in the EU.
2. Well done! Getting rid of Nigel Farage is a definite plus plus plus. Whether Brexit is worth it...
I think you need to go back and re-remember how the EU tried to fuck us over on vaccines.... Because we were making them look bad.
Macron commenting on the quality of our vaccine ring any bells?
Sure Macron's a bellend (something we all know).
I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Big reason why Makerfield stayed Labour and Leigh didn't despite slightly worse demographics. Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP. She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town. PS. Streeting has charisma? It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey.
I thought Makerfield was Yvonne Forvague (sp?) Or is that your point - Lisa's charms not only win her own seat but her neighbours' too?
I'm only going off anecdotal reports from my Mother. Leigh sees itself in opposition to Wigan. Makerfield, which could easily be named Wigan South, (the less posh bit) is firmly Wigan. Mums's canvassing reports said many in Makerfield said they'd vote Labour cos they liked Lisa Nandy the Wigan MP.
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
Pleased to hear you'd go back to Nottingham. Would you live in that little village in Broxtowe you used to live in, or in the city?
I know exactly where I would live - I have spent considerable mental energy on this. I have a ranked list. But the Lake District comes top. Specifically, I think, Windermere: I'd like to live in a town, and the great thing about tourist towns is that they have life out of all proportion to their size. But Windermere feels a little more 'real' and a little less chocolate boxy than Bowness. And also, it has a station. Which I may not use that often, but I would value the potential to reach the outside world easily without a car. And it's that little bit closer to civilisation (i.e. almsot any destination outside the Lake District that I might want) than Keswick, which would be the other choice. I know real life doesn't work like this - but I think I would be happy every single day. I have been to the Lake District time and time and time again over the last 40-odd years, and never felt anything but happy there. I know it's different when you're on holiday, and there would be practical irritations of life. But those irritations would be to the backdrop of the uttermost beauty. And also, it would be home. There are hundreds of beautiful places in the world - the Italian Alps, New England, Dalmatia, to name but three - but all of them feel like someone else's beauty. I remember a wonderful week by Lake Garda - I loved it, I really did: I ate well, the weather was perfect, the scenery divine - but I found myself longing for a sticky toffee pudding and a pint of real ale. The Lake District feels like mine; like a distillation of what I think home should be.
I saw the perfect house come up for sale there a couple of years back. We could have afforded it - just. But it was before working from home, or even hybrid working, felt properly doable. Now I could do it, and even getting to Manchester a couple of days a week is doable. But the moment's gone. And realistically, I've lived in my Mancunian suburb for ten years now and have a whole thicket of roots here; I have friends whose company I enjoy and upon whom I can rely in a crisis; my wife has friends, my kids have friends, my parents and my in-laws are both within half an hour - all of whom will need increasing amounts of looking after over the next fifteen years. The moment has passed. The time to choose to live where you really want is before you put down roots, and really, life is pretty good where I am. But I do sometimes try to work out if there's a way things could have worked out differently.
Some positives for Nandy. Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers). Ticks several boxes.
Think she wouldn’t scare the moderate Tory voting shires either.
She is a complete lightweight and a republican like Corbyn, which we Tories would make damn sure the Tory shires know about.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
Big reason why Makerfield stayed Labour and Leigh didn't despite slightly worse demographics. Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP. She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town. PS. Streeting has charisma? It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey, that's some statement.
You appear to think that is an argument. Everyone knows the swings were to the Labour in London and worse further north. The point is. How to change that?
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1524116898387963904 Ukraine expects membership candidate status by the EU in June. “Then we will sit down with you and resolve the rest of the issues. How. When, and so forth.” “If we don’t get the candidate status, it means that Europe is trying to trick us,"—Ukrainian FM
I seem to remember East Germany getting membership very quickly.
I recall Thatcher opposing reunification.
Am I right in thinking it was down to instinctive resistance to a strong, militarised Germany?
No - she had this crazy idea that a reunited Germany would be bigger than France, economically and politically, and would end up dominating the politics of Europe.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
If she felt that was so big a negative it meant Germany should not be reunited, yes, she was massively wrong. It's the sort of thing someone who has been leader too long comes up with, overthinking things in an attempt to be the Bismarkian statesman playing geopolitical games they are in their own heads.
You could argue that reunification and expansion of EU easy led to a mad rush to try and get to a United States of Europe in the lifetimes of somewhat elderly politicians.
Said rush created the Greek crisis and BREXIT. Also gave us Orban pissing out the windows. And the current Polish government is a joy to behold…
Much could be argued, but Thatcher was not a seer. I really doubt her reasoning extended to being able to predict even the generality of events taking places 30 years hence, indeed your own summary of her views was nothing more than simplistic fear that Germany would be more powerful, as if that inevitably would lead, rather tangentially, to crises at the periphery.
Seems no more than the typical over egging of Thatcher's judgement and impact, positive and negative, that thankfully is becoming less frequent over the years.
The problem - which she foresaw - was that the dynamic of Europe changed from U.K., France and West Germany as kinda-equal, to German being the biggest.
We have just seen the latest fallout of that dominance - Germany pushed for Russian gas, despite many others in Europe saying hang on. Only Putin managed to stop Nord Stream ….
She foresaw that if things changed then things would change? What a prognosticator!
One country dominating has turned out to be bad for Europe.
As opposed to 3 sort of equal large countries with states such as Italy and Spain being close in clout, in many ways.
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
"I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge,"
Personally FWIW I think this is awful and utterly depressing if true that people would rather stay at home and only meet work mates once a month or so.
Atomisation.
And of course only available to the laptop class of society.
Having thoroughly enjoyed our monthly get-together today (not to mention a weekly meetup with nearby colleagues) I vastly prefer the 5 years we've spent 100% remote, spending time with my family, rather than hours of commuting.
Death knell seems dramatic even for them. Plenty of places are getting by WFH just now without whatever law was previously intended to make it easier.
We've settled on a hybrid model - come into work two days a week, same days as your team; work from home the other days. It's fairly widely accepted. But I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge, since people can live in the cheapest nice place in the country (or indeed overseas) and enjoy their preferred lifestyle regardless of where their employer is.
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
"I know of several other organisations that now allow 100% wfh, and they are getting a real recruitment edge,"
Personally FWIW I think this is awful and utterly depressing if true that people would rather stay at home and only meet work mates once a month or so.
Atomisation.
And of course only available to the laptop class of society.
Capitalism is about choice. Can't buck the market? Suck it up. I have several work colleagues I'd prefer not to see once a decade.
Comments
Parent led conservative backlash in the US, school board elections are showing the direction of travel. Wokism has overplayed its hand there big time.
Just my opinion of course but put the farm on 45 for 24
Quick peek suggests she takes the Washingtin and Sunderland SW swat more easily and my speculative gain would be central
If they win in 2024 Labour need to ask why because they really should walk it
I am told documents have been passed to Durham Police that Labour claims exonerate Starmer and prove comprehensively that he did follow the rules.
She is also a bit of a lightweight and would probably leak Remainers to the LDs, especially in London and the South, without winning many Leavers from the Tories
The service there was incredible. In the unbelievable sense!
*it used to revel in its reputation as the rudest restaraunt in London, but has gone soft now.
I am sure there is no coincidence you have awful abuse just as HYUFD does. It is because you will argue your point coherently and without shouting.
We could all learn a lot from you both.
I hope you are keeping well.
Are you a Londoner I forget friend
Yes agree Labour need to put something out now.
Windfall tax has been an excellent start though
No one likes approving housing, because voters don't like it where it happens, but there is a reason governments of both types have had rules to encourage it happening, rather than discourage it.
So what's the plan? Presumably they still want plenty of housing, and your own experience on a council surely shows local communities will approve as little as possible in most cases if they can, so what's the answer?
I'm not trying to trick you, I just can't see how the aim of more housing is planned to be achieved - no one liked the previous proposals, but they went down that route presumably out of desperation at the need to build more.
How many times has this been announced now?
They have "unattractive" accents. The Oxbridge ones are "too posh".
Vote Tory. No one else is right and proper.
Totally wrong there, wasn’t she?
Plus of course Attlee did beat Churchill in 1945 and 1950
Million houses a year, here we come….
DEATH KNELL FOR WORK FROM HOME
New law to make WFH easier axed from Queen's Speech
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1524140152167227392
FWIW, the consensus back then was Starmer, though without enthusiasm. Though obviously one table at a pub is not representative of the party at large.
If I was Labour I'd go for Bridget Phillipson. Though please Bridget, tone the lipstick down! (This is a personal thing. I've realised, rather belatedly in life, that what I feel is not a simple dislike for lipstick on a woman, but an actual feeling of physical revulsion. I don't know if I'm unique in this.)
I am off Avamys for nose now onto Dynamist
Years ago a family friend, who lives on Hayling Island, worked for an IoW firm. Mostly wfh, but once every couple of weeks would actually cross the water. Had a fantastic relationship with the boss. All good, excellent work done.
You can see where it’s going.
New boss, no worry from home.
Not long before excellent worker leaves the firm.
Depressing to think the UK government thinks like this.
Plans are required to be reviewed so often they don't actually last unchanged across the periods set out.
But in essence your plan appears to be 'All councils everywhere have already set out all required housing targets for the next few decades, and that will meet all housing need'?
So are you actually saying the government pledge about legally binding targets being scrapped is meaningless, since it won't take effect for decades?
I'm really confused by your plan - Gove is usually clearer than this, at least to start with.
Said rush created the Greek crisis and BREXIT. Also gave us Orban pissing out the windows. And the current Polish government is a joy to behold…
The fuck is this crap
Delighted to hear life off the antidepressants is going well. Progress may not be linear - be prepared to have the odd bad day - but I'm sure the medium-term trend will be in the right direction.
Also very pleased to hear of your cricketing progress. :-)
Comprehensive educated. Female. Ethnic minority. Northern. Soft left. Soft Brexiter. Though voted Remain (as did many Cabinet Ministers).
Ticks several boxes.
No idea what your last sentence means!
Seems no more than the typical over egging of Thatcher's judgement and impact, positive and negative, that thankfully is becoming less frequent over the years.
She is too Brexity for Remainers who would start to shift back to the LDs (remember Labour lost more votes to the LDs in 2019 than the Tories), while still not Brexity enough for Boris backing Leavers in the redwall.
She so has no charisma unlike Burnham or Streeting and no gravitas unlike Starmer or Cooper or even Reeves. Heck, even Rayner would be a better option for Labour than Nandy
They put me on Avamys spray initially which has not helped a lot. Now I am onto a new spray called Dynamist
He's Starmer without a responsible job on his CV.
Got an aversion to Jess Phillips. Can't pin it down. But no.
Nandy's feisty without being gratuitously offensive (Rayner) or unnecessarily crude (Phillips).
Irrespective of how we feel about this, where would PBers choose to live if they were allowed to work from anywhere, weighing up both enjoyment and cost? Say the same time zone, with good broadband, so you can't pick the Seychelles.
I'd probably go back to Nottingham, which I suspect is not a universal choice...
Been watching the Bafta winning "In My Skin" myself. Rightly an award winner.
Also watched Fergus Keane on PTSD, rather gruelling film clips, but brilliant TV. The BBC can really do great stuff when it wants to do so.
Lots of voters thought they were voting for Lisa Nandy the "Wigan" MP.
She's pretty well liked in a classic Red Wall town.
PS.
Streeting has charisma?
It's in the eye of the beholder I know. But crikey, that's some statement.
I think her Brexit position is unlikely to alienate too many. Brexity, but looking for pragmatic solutions. Not necessarily to my tastes, but could find favour. I can't be the only one to value consensuality.
Agree on the charisma and gravitas though. And also behind the agreeable facade she occasionally comes out with some quite batty wokery.
Or is that your point - Lisa's charms not only win her own seat but her neighbours' too?
My main concern is some are so keen on WFH that they ignore or trivialise any concerns, as if nothing could possibly be done better in person. Rottenborough touches upon some of those issues.
Personally FWIW I think this is awful and utterly depressing if true that people would rather stay at home and only meet work mates once a month or so.
Atomisation.
And of course only available to the laptop class of society.
We have just seen the latest fallout of that dominance - Germany pushed for Russian gas, despite many others in Europe saying hang on. Only Putin managed to stop Nord Stream ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigan_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Result in Streeting's seat of Ilford North in 2019? A 3% swing from Labour to the Conservatives, below the UK average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
lol.
I actually think that Brexit benefitted both the EU and the UK wrt vaccines. Our early outperformance led them to throw caution to the wind and make a massive Pfizer order. The consequence of which is that - after a rocky couple of initial months - the EU ended up performing quite well with vaccines.
Makerfield, which could easily be named Wigan South, (the less posh bit) is firmly Wigan.
Mums's canvassing reports said many in Makerfield said they'd vote Labour cos they liked Lisa Nandy the Wigan MP.
I know exactly where I would live - I have spent considerable mental energy on this. I have a ranked list. But the Lake District comes top. Specifically, I think, Windermere: I'd like to live in a town, and the great thing about tourist towns is that they have life out of all proportion to their size. But Windermere feels a little more 'real' and a little less chocolate boxy than Bowness. And also, it has a station. Which I may not use that often, but I would value the potential to reach the outside world easily without a car. And it's that little bit closer to civilisation (i.e. almsot any destination outside the Lake District that I might want) than Keswick, which would be the other choice.
I know real life doesn't work like this - but I think I would be happy every single day. I have been to the Lake District time and time and time again over the last 40-odd years, and never felt anything but happy there. I know it's different when you're on holiday, and there would be practical irritations of life. But those irritations would be to the backdrop of the uttermost beauty. And also, it would be home. There are hundreds of beautiful places in the world - the Italian Alps, New England, Dalmatia, to name but three - but all of them feel like someone else's beauty. I remember a wonderful week by Lake Garda - I loved it, I really did: I ate well, the weather was perfect, the scenery divine - but I found myself longing for a sticky toffee pudding and a pint of real ale. The Lake District feels like mine; like a distillation of what I think home should be.
I saw the perfect house come up for sale there a couple of years back. We could have afforded it - just. But it was before working from home, or even hybrid working, felt properly doable. Now I could do it, and even getting to Manchester a couple of days a week is doable. But the moment's gone. And realistically, I've lived in my Mancunian suburb for ten years now and have a whole thicket of roots here; I have friends whose company I enjoy and upon whom I can rely in a crisis; my wife has friends, my kids have friends, my parents and my in-laws are both within half an hour - all of whom will need increasing amounts of looking after over the next fifteen years. The moment has passed. The time to choose to live where you really want is before you put down roots, and really, life is pretty good where I am. But I do sometimes try to work out if there's a way things could have worked out differently.
Everyone knows the swings were to the Labour in London and worse further north.
The point is. How to change that?
As opposed to 3 sort of equal large countries with states such as Italy and Spain being close in clout, in many ways.
If you don’t want to see that - fine.
I have several work colleagues I'd prefer not to see once a decade.