Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

LAB up to a 15% lead with YouGov – politicalbetting.com

2

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    I liked Wilson and 4 election victories beats even TB.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Sir Keir Starmer has reached the same giddy heights as Prime Minister Ed Miliband in 2013.

    I don't know what the point of that is - it's just one poll and probably an outlier. David Cameron enjoyed 20 point leads in 2008 and 2009 after the global financial crash but couldn't win a majority in 2010.
    So you know what the point is.

    Midterm polls aren't guarantees of anything. Ed Miliband got 13 point poll leads and failed to become PM. David Cameron got 20 point leads and failed to get a majority. Jeremy Corbyn got some 10 point poll leads and led Labour to its worst performance since before WWII later that year.

    It seems some people think Sir Keir Starmer has the next election in the bag because he has the same opinion poll lead that Ed Miliband once had.
    No one of any political sense thinks that just as no one should think Conservative re-election is guaranteed by a few tax cutting gimmicks and further homage to the shrine of St Laffer the Immaculate.
    It is a common occurence that things that used to work, even inexplicably, can in a short period suddenly cease being effective. A rebranding and refocusing, with some gimmicks, has worked previously. But when things look and, more importantly, are staring to feel pretty bad for plenty of normal people, even the good ideas and policies can end up looking like the desperate moves of a failing government, fairly or not.

    As rottenborough notes, Truss will not have much time to prove herself and set her narrative, and it will be a difficult period (and possibly with the Boris crowd up in arms if there are standards moves against him, and attacking her if she does not move heaven and earth to save him).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376

    I love how barmy Starmer and his crowd of sycophants thinks that increasing National Insurance paid by people who work as opposed to those who don't is helping working people, reversing that tax rise is "a holiday from reality" while cutting Income Tax from 20% to 16% on everyone whether they work and pay national insurance or they don't is supposedly "reality" and sensible.

    Pull the other one. Slashing Income Tax to just 16% while lifting National Insurance isn't better economics and it is just ratchetting tax from unearned income to earned incomes. Anyone backing that, isn't fit for office.

    Sycophant recognises sycophant.

    As for “isn't fit for office”. Ahem.

    How many times - it is all muscle!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Nadiya doesn't agree with a sugar tax?

    I am not surprised, she puts a kilo or so of sugar in everything, determined to get us all with diabetes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    He chose Dominic Cummings as his chief adviser.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    Denis Healey.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    Sir Keir Starmer has reached the same giddy heights as Prime Minister Ed Miliband in 2013.

    I don't know what the point of that is - it's just one poll and probably an outlier. David Cameron enjoyed 20 point leads in 2008 and 2009 after the global financial crash but couldn't win a majority in 2010.
    So you know what the point is.

    Midterm polls aren't guarantees of anything. Ed Miliband got 13 point poll leads and failed to become PM. David Cameron got 20 point leads and failed to get a majority. Jeremy Corbyn got some 10 point poll leads and led Labour to its worst performance since before WWII later that year.

    It seems some people think Sir Keir Starmer has the next election in the bag because he has the same opinion poll lead that Ed Miliband once had.
    Labour at least largest party is almost in the bag I think. But of course you never know. That's the beauty of live politics. That's why people love to watch it.
    That requires around 80 gains. 'In the bag' is a touch optimistic at this stage.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    The target audience would probably love a holiday from reality. Who doesn't love a holiday after all?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    Sir Keir Starmer has reached the same giddy heights as Prime Minister Ed Miliband in 2013.

    I don't know what the point of that is - it's just one poll and probably an outlier. David Cameron enjoyed 20 point leads in 2008 and 2009 after the global financial crash but couldn't win a majority in 2010.
    So you know what the point is.

    Midterm polls aren't guarantees of anything. Ed Miliband got 13 point poll leads and failed to become PM. David Cameron got 20 point leads and failed to get a majority. Jeremy Corbyn got some 10 point poll leads and led Labour to its worst performance since before WWII later that year.

    It seems some people think Sir Keir Starmer has the next election in the bag because he has the same opinion poll lead that Ed Miliband once had.
    Labour at least largest party is almost in the bag I think. But of course you never know. That's the beauty of live politics. That's why people love to watch it.
    That requires around 80 gains. 'In the bag' is a touch optimistic at this stage.
    It won't be easy. But at present they are reaching levels where it looks probable.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Me neither. He's the closest we've had to the current incumbent tbh. Although a super intelligent hard working one.
    Had that ability to speak to different audiences.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    edited August 2022
    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1560725305651773441?t=6V-Rt2ySLD_5eJqzsDUc6A&s=19

    Chris Curtis being a dirty little tease about tomorrows opinium
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Sir Keir Starmer has reached the same giddy heights as Prime Minister Ed Miliband in 2013.

    I don't know what the point of that is - it's just one poll and probably an outlier. David Cameron enjoyed 20 point leads in 2008 and 2009 after the global financial crash but couldn't win a majority in 2010.
    So you know what the point is.

    Midterm polls aren't guarantees of anything. Ed Miliband got 13 point poll leads and failed to become PM. David Cameron got 20 point leads and failed to get a majority. Jeremy Corbyn got some 10 point poll leads and led Labour to its worst performance since before WWII later that year.

    It seems some people think Sir Keir Starmer has the next election in the bag because he has the same opinion poll lead that Ed Miliband once had.
    No one of any political sense thinks that just as no one should think Conservative re-election is guaranteed by a few tax cutting gimmicks and further homage to the shrine of St Laffer the Immaculate.

    There is a widespread perception the next 12 months will be difficult for many. You may dispute that and say the negativity is overdone. Perhaps but it will need a more interventionist Government than you might be able to stomach to ensure the "pain" is limited.

    It may well be this time next year things will look very different and the path to a Conservative re-election will be clearer - I don't know and neither do you. In a period which has seen a global pandemic and a renewed war on the edges of Europe it would be a foolish person who is dogmatic about the next election.
    More homage to St Laffer?

    Taxes have been increased to their highest rates in over 70 years. We have lots of people in this country on real marginal tax rates of 60-70%, while Sunak wants to get others down to just 16%.

    Its possible on the Laffer curve to be to either the left or the right of the peak, right now we're probably both. Those facing 60-70% real marginal tax rates are probably paying far too much tax which is discouraging work - those who aren't even working who are paying just 20% tax which Sunak wants to see further reduced to just 16% are getting away with not paying as much as they could.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    Ed Miliband
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    Barbara Castle. But then Wilson.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    A poor man's Peter Mandelson.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,175
    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    John Smith
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    edited August 2022
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Lib-Dem Councillor in small town large village complains about planning decision on 70 houses to appeal to Nimbies.

    Are things back to normal?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    Ed Miliband
    Good call. Imagine his Coalition of Chaos. We had a narrow escape there...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    edited August 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    John Smith
    Well. That's a fascinating counter factual.
    He'd have walked it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
    Did Liz Truss say she wants Grammar Schools to expand parental choice?
    Or is that just pisspoor BBC reporting?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,955

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson and Blair committed the cardinal sin: they chose winning elections over intellectual purity.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,709
    Scott_xP said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    John Smith
    He was the last chance for your team.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    Ken Clarke. The same ability to knock things down that needed knocking down, much better at building up afterwards.

    How have we gone from having decent PMs to spare to having to choose the least bad of obviously flawed options?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    Sir Keir Starmer has reached the same giddy heights as Prime Minister Ed Miliband in 2013.

    I don't know what the point of that is - it's just one poll and probably an outlier. David Cameron enjoyed 20 point leads in 2008 and 2009 after the global financial crash but couldn't win a majority in 2010.
    So you know what the point is.

    Midterm polls aren't guarantees of anything. Ed Miliband got 13 point poll leads and failed to become PM. David Cameron got 20 point leads and failed to get a majority. Jeremy Corbyn got some 10 point poll leads and led Labour to its worst performance since before WWII later that year.

    It seems some people think Sir Keir Starmer has the next election in the bag because he has the same opinion poll lead that Ed Miliband once had.
    Labour at least largest party is almost in the bag I think. But of course you never know. That's the beauty of live politics. That's why people love to watch it.
    That requires around 80 gains. 'In the bag' is a touch optimistic at this stage.
    It won't be easy. But at present they are reaching levels where it looks probable.
    Yes, but YouGov's polling has moved the lead by 14% in 3 weeks. Things are very volatile.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Scott_xP said:

    "Liz Truss is a planet-sized mass of overconfidence and ambition teetering upon a pinhead of a political brain. It must all come crashing down" | ✍️ @MathewParris3 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theres-no-more-to-truss-than-meets-the-eye-k8f793397

    God, I hate these overconfident Oxbridge types, they need some humility or is it humiliation?
    Parris can come back to us once he has learnt to adjust a tidetable for BST. Complete arse.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,183

    Andy_JS said:

    Michael Gove: the best prime minister we never had. Discuss.

    Ken Clarke. The same ability to knock things down that needed knocking down, much better at building up afterwards.

    How have we gone from having decent PMs to spare to having to choose the least bad of obviously flawed options?
    Ken Clarke burnished his reputation outside of government, but in Cameron's Cabinet didn't he oversee large cuts to the justice system that have had a disastrous effect?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    Wow. Gove.

    The famous quote about Tallyrand comes to mind.

    What's Gove said?

    Its been obvious all along despite Gove's ramping of Badenoch that he's been on Team Sunak. Everyone else normally linked to Gove was backing Sunak and yet for some reason Gove was ramping Badenoch who was appealing to the same sort of MPs that Truss was appealing to, funny that. Said all along that Gove was the one person Machiavellian enough to be backing Badenoch formally in order to try to help Sunak win.
    He's said she's gone a bit potty and her tax proposals will only benefit the richest CEOs in the country.
    Rich multimillionaire CEOs of course mere peasants in comparison to the patrician Rishi, son in law of a billionaire

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    Surrey Heath will be a nice seat for a new candidate if Gove retires altogether.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    I expect Truss will at least get a bounce based on Redfield preferred PM polling compared to this dire Yougov for the Tories
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited August 2022
    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Lib-Dem Councillor in small town large village complains about planning decision on 70 houses to appeal to Nimbies.

    Are things back to normal?
    People objecting wasn't the message, as you note that is normal - it was the (true) point about the work that goes into Neighbourhood Plans and yet they are not the cast iron defence HYUFD thinks they are, as Inspectors will factor in other things besides 'But...but, we have a Neighbourhood Plan'. Because, to be a broken record, the system is not there to find ways to say no to things, it is to find ways to say yes. Don't expect Truss or Sunak to change that, even as they desperately seek a way to placate the shires.

    Also, I think parishes can call themselves towns whenever they please, no need for a charter fo rthose.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,025
    tlg86 said:

    Perhaps Starmer should stay on holiday.

    I can see why Tories might wish for that.

    This poll is what happens when Starmer finally launches a major, well-communicated, popular policy that credibly addresses an area of key public concern where the government has manifestly failed to deliver.

    There will be plenty of other opportunities for Starmer to pull off the same trick again as the next election approaches. It's not as though the NHS, housing, etc etc are tickety boo at the moment as the country rapidly goes to the dogs. Remember how even Corbyn was able to make up ground in the 2017 GE election campaign as Labour launched a series of policy offers that were relevant to peoples lives.
  • d
    dixiedean said:
    Gove will tear us apart.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    "‘Generation sensible’ risk missing out on life experiences, therapists warn
    Reports of rise in social anxiety among overly cautious 11- to 25-year-olds who often interact online"

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/19/generation-sensible-risk-missing-out-life-experiences-therapists
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    That is the intent behind them, the usual situation, but there are situations where they will not have that weight - hence people being angry as they've put time and energy on something which it turns out is not a cast iron defence - see the point about NPs even a few years old (which is very unfair if you ask me). It isn't entirely open season if you lack a 5 year land supply for example, you are not required to approve any old site, but Inspectors will allow permission on sites not included in a plan when applying the tilted balance, if they consider it appropriate in the circumstances.

    I'm beginning to think you had a very poor adviser on your Plan, and have been fortunate to date, as you will be very surprised that it is not as definitive as you think it is if you are unfortunate, and they should have let you know that it is definitely worth doing and should help in the way you describe, but it doesn't mean there are no situations where it will not help as much as you'd like (still relevant, but not as material as in an ordinaru situation).

    I'm also wondering how you explain successful appeals in these situations, since by your logic they are impossible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited August 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson and Blair committed the cardinal sin: they chose winning elections over intellectual purity.
    Whilst a complete lack of vision for sake of victory in theory would be a bad thing, I am continuously surprised by the sheer number of people who appear to genuinely think better not to concede or modulate anything in order to do achieve victory, and the chance to implement something.

    One can only conclude they are not actually that mad about the governments they oppose, which cannot be as bad as they say, if some compromise is not worth defeating them.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Me neither. He's the closest we've had to the current incumbent tbh. Although a super intelligent hard working one.
    Had that ability to speak to different audiences.
    Sense of humour too.

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,025

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    stodge said:

    Sir Keir Starmer has reached the same giddy heights as Prime Minister Ed Miliband in 2013.

    I don't know what the point of that is - it's just one poll and probably an outlier. David Cameron enjoyed 20 point leads in 2008 and 2009 after the global financial crash but couldn't win a majority in 2010.
    So you know what the point is.

    Midterm polls aren't guarantees of anything. Ed Miliband got 13 point poll leads and failed to become PM. David Cameron got 20 point leads and failed to get a majority. Jeremy Corbyn got some 10 point poll leads and led Labour to its worst performance since before WWII later that year.

    It seems some people think Sir Keir Starmer has the next election in the bag because he has the same opinion poll lead that Ed Miliband once had.
    Labour at least largest party is almost in the bag I think. But of course you never know. That's the beauty of live politics. That's why people love to watch it.
    That requires around 80 gains. 'In the bag' is a touch optimistic at this stage.
    It won't be easy. But at present they are reaching levels where it looks probable.
    Yes, but YouGov's polling has moved the lead by 14% in 3 weeks. Things are very volatile.
    Consistent though in terms of YouGov trend. From 1% to 4%, 7%, 15% lead now. The latter fairly obviously benefitting from Starmer's announcement on the energy price cap, the first poll to be able to reflect that. So there is a good reason to think that the polls have moved to a degree, rather than just crying "outlier".
  • HYUFD said:

    I expect Truss will at least get a bounce based on Redfield preferred PM polling compared to this dire Yougov for the Tories

    It could all be outliers- the 1% Labour lead didn't smell entirely right, and neither does this one... Yet.

    But a lot of dung is being thrown Truss's way, in a way I don't remember happening to someone coasting to victory before. There was criticism of Johnson in 2019, but not like this.

    Given that it's howling against the (probably) inevitable, one has to ask... Why?

    Maybe Truss is actually a nutter.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    Nadiya doesn't agree with a sugar tax?

    I am not surprised, she puts a kilo or so of sugar in everything, determined to get us all with diabetes.
    Have Gove and Sanna been on a rave night out together?

    We should be told the truth.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    The Gove praise starting to come in...


    Patrick Kidd
    @patrick_kidd
    ·
    36m
    Seen a few tweets deservedly praising Michael Gove’s qualities as a minister as he heads for the backbenches. He was also a superb Commons speech-maker, gave 2 of the best 3 I saw when I was in the gallery (Benn the other). Could speak at length from a few notes, a vanishing art
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    kle4 said:

    MattW said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Lib-Dem Councillor in small town large village complains about planning decision on 70 houses to appeal to Nimbies.

    Are things back to normal?
    People objecting wasn't the message, as you note that is normal - it was the (true) point about the work that goes into Neighbourhood Plans and yet they are not the cast iron defence HYUFD thinks they are, as Inspectors will factor in other things besides 'But...but, we have a Neighbourhood Plan'. Because, to be a broken record, the system is not there to find ways to say no to things, it is to find ways to say yes. Don't expect Truss or Sunak to change that, even as they desperately seek a way to placate the shires.

    Also, I think parishes can call themselves towns whenever they please, no need for a charter fo rthose.
    You need a Mayor to be a Town Council
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    You have evidently not had experience of writing a neighbourhood plan or living in a neighbourhood with a neighbourhood plan when planning is sought for new development.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Fun fact, Corbyn is the 10th longest serving Leader of the Opposition since 1911 (when the wiki list counts from), just behind Ed M. Starmer is at 20th. Given opposition leaders are not likely to get more than one go anymore (Corbyn managed it by dint of exceeding expectations significantly), I don't think Kinnock's place at the top of the list will be challenged.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    That is the intent behind them, the usual situation, but there are situations where they will not have that weight - hence people being angry as they've put time and energy on something which it turns out is not a cast iron defence - see the point about NPs even a few years old (which is very unfair if you ask me). It isn't entirely open season if you lack a 5 year land supply for example, you are not required to approve any old site, but Inspectors will allow permission on sites not included in a plan when applying the tilted balance, if they consider it appropriate in the circumstances.

    I'm beginning to think you had a very poor adviser on your Plan, and have been fortunate to date, as you will be very surprised that it is not as definitive as you think it is if you are unfortunate, and they should have let you know that it is definitely worth doing and should help in the way you describe, but it doesn't mean there are no situations where it will not help as much as you'd like (still relevant, but not as material as in an ordinaru situation).

    I'm also wondering how you explain successful appeals in these situations, since by your logic they are impossible.
    If you don't have a Neighbourhood Plan and inspector approved Local Plan developers can build
    where they like, they are vital
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Sam Freedman
    @Samfr
    ·
    1h
    I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."

    And

    "This is going to be an almighty car crash".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2022

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson was too rightwing for Corbynites but too leftwing for Blairites that is why.

    Ideologically Starmer is probably not too far from him either
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039

    The Gove praise starting to come in...


    Patrick Kidd
    @patrick_kidd
    ·
    36m
    Seen a few tweets deservedly praising Michael Gove’s qualities as a minister as he heads for the backbenches. He was also a superb Commons speech-maker, gave 2 of the best 3 I saw when I was in the gallery (Benn the other). Could speak at length from a few notes, a vanishing art

    I was a Gove supporter before he became obscure...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,695
    One decent policy. Tories refusal to match it equals a 15 pt lead.

    More decent policies and we get SKS as PM if Tories don't get their act together quick.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    The Gove praise starting to come in...


    Patrick Kidd
    @patrick_kidd
    ·
    36m
    Seen a few tweets deservedly praising Michael Gove’s qualities as a minister as he heads for the backbenches. He was also a superb Commons speech-maker, gave 2 of the best 3 I saw when I was in the gallery (Benn the other). Could speak at length from a few notes, a vanishing art

    I was a Gove supporter before he became obscure...
    Robert Hutton
    @RobDotHutton
    ·
    1h
    Who could have predicted a year ago that "endorsing Rishi Sunak" would become axiomatic for "leaving politics"?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,993
    PM Gove would have blindly taken us into a needless full omicron lockdown because he “always was a bedwetter” in his own words to the 1922.

    We had a lucky escape that he never took over and it cheers my heart to think he might not return to power.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376

    HYUFD said:

    I expect Truss will at least get a bounce based on Redfield preferred PM polling compared to this dire Yougov for the Tories

    It could all be outliers- the 1% Labour lead didn't smell entirely right, and neither does this one... Yet.

    But a lot of dung is being thrown Truss's way, in a way I don't remember happening to someone coasting to victory before. There was criticism of Johnson in 2019, but not like this.

    Given that it's howling against the (probably) inevitable, one has to ask... Why?

    Maybe Truss is actually a nutter.
    Take away the Murdoch press, and you lose Parris, Gove, news pieces about Truss's tax cuts being slated by economists (who also slated Rishi’s tax cuts but this is not mentioned) and all the rest of the ordure you describe. I expect a tense relationship with PM Truss and them. Grudging support masking seething dislike, a bit like their attitude to the Royal family.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,376

    The Gove praise starting to come in...


    Patrick Kidd
    @patrick_kidd
    ·
    36m
    Seen a few tweets deservedly praising Michael Gove’s qualities as a minister as he heads for the backbenches. He was also a superb Commons speech-maker, gave 2 of the best 3 I saw when I was in the gallery (Benn the other). Could speak at length from a few notes, a vanishing art

    I was a Gove supporter before he became obscure...
    Robert Hutton
    @RobDotHutton
    ·
    1h
    Who could have predicted a year ago that "endorsing Rishi Sunak" would become axiomatic for "leaving politics"?
    Optimists!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    The Gove praise starting to come in...


    Patrick Kidd
    @patrick_kidd
    ·
    36m
    Seen a few tweets deservedly praising Michael Gove’s qualities as a minister as he heads for the backbenches. He was also a superb Commons speech-maker, gave 2 of the best 3 I saw when I was in the gallery (Benn the other). Could speak at length from a few notes, a vanishing art

    I was a Gove supporter before he became obscure...
    Thanks to Gove's over-meddling my wood log delivery man now has to deliver 28 bags at a time rather than my usual 7 spread out repetitively over the season. He also has to fill in loads of paperwork.

    His stuff all comes from his work as a traditional wood coppice person and is seasoned and sustainable.

    In order to stop garages selling 'wet' wood my man has to only deliver in massive bulk.

    This is red tape and it is NOT EU red tape. This is home grown Gove shaped red tape.

    Gove can be too clever by half frankly.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    edited August 2022
    YouGov is all over the place atm. I think they had a one point lead fairly recently.
  • Sam Freedman
    @Samfr
    ·
    1h
    I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."

    And

    "This is going to be an almighty car crash".

    Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.

    And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.

    So there's a bit of hope.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Sam Freedman
    @Samfr
    ·
    1h
    I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."

    And

    "This is going to be an almighty car crash".

    Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.

    And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.

    So there's a bit of hope.
    To be honest the love child of JFK and LBJ could be taking over next month and they would still be overwhelmed by the economic shitstorm that is coming.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson was too rightwing for Corbynites but too leftwing for Blairites that is why.

    Ideologically Starmer is probably not too far from him either
    One of Wilson's towering strengths was managing the party and balancing the two tribes.
  • Sam Freedman
    @Samfr
    ·
    1h
    I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."

    And

    "This is going to be an almighty car crash".

    Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.

    And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.

    So there's a bit of hope.
    To be honest the love child of JFK and LBJ could be taking over next month and they would still be overwhelmed by the economic shitstorm that is coming.

    A love child of JFK sounds plausible. What about LBJ?

    Leaving aside the fact that a JFK-LBJ lovechild would require something LBGT to be happening. Maybe JFK and MHT?

    Don't have nightmares, everyone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson was too rightwing for Corbynites but too leftwing for Blairites that is why.

    Ideologically Starmer is probably not too far from him either
    One of Wilson's towering strengths was managing the party and balancing the two tribes.
    Yes managing Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Roy Jenkins and Dennis Healey was quite a challenge
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,752
    edited August 2022
    Well, at least Brexit has barely raised its ugly head on this thread.

    On the opinion poll, obviously it's premature to draw any conclusions as to the outcome of the next GE.
    Although it's also obvious that those who, not very long ago, wrote off Starmer as a dud and Labour as no-hopers, including many on here, were also being premature.
    All to play for, methinks.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    moonshine said:

    PM Gove would have blindly taken us into a needless full omicron lockdown because he “always was a bedwetter” in his own words to the 1922.

    We had a lucky escape that he never took over and it cheers my heart to think he might not return to power.

    Hopefully Grant Shapps will be out of government as well.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,280
    1997 style defeat for the Tories based on that.

    When did we stop doing electoral calculus. Should say that others in that poll are a whopping 18%.

    Time for bed and then one more weekend before becoming middle-aged.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson was too rightwing for Corbynites but too leftwing for Blairites that is why.

    Ideologically Starmer is probably not too far from him either
    One of Wilson's towering strengths was managing the party and balancing the two tribes.
    Yes managing Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Roy Jenkins and Dennis Healey was quite a challenge
    But, oh, what a Cabinet it was. Jammed with big beasts.

    Seems barely believable looking at recent Cabinets.

    Maybe it is my age?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    It's becoming an epidemic...


    Polly Mackenzie @pollymackenzie
    I don’t think any minister has achieved as much in the last 11 years than @michaelgove
    . You may not agree with all of it (I know I don’t) - but in every department he has been a beacon of competence who actually got things done. Even when everything else was collapsing.

    And - of course - he was completely right that Boris Johnson would be a terrible PM. The next government will be poorer without him.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    And on it goes...


    Will Hutton
    @williamnhutton
    ·
    2h
    Michael Gove may have been a Brexiter but he was the only effective and decent minister in Johnson’s cabinet. His withdrawal from front bench politics is a loss. Levelling up, cladding, education , housing.. Now it really is the C team in control .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Bruno Maçães
    @MacaesBruno
    Kremlin trying really hard to unseat Finnish PM

    https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1560628144876535810
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393

    And on it goes...


    Will Hutton
    @williamnhutton
    ·
    2h
    Michael Gove may have been a Brexiter but he was the only effective and decent minister in Johnson’s cabinet. His withdrawal from front bench politics is a loss. Levelling up, cladding, education , housing.. Now it really is the C team in control .

    Suddenly the left like him because he's anti the next Tory leader. Bit transparent.
  • Andy_JS said:

    YouGov is all over the place atm. I think they had a one point lead fairly recently.

    27-28 July.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    Andy_JS said:

    And on it goes...


    Will Hutton
    @williamnhutton
    ·
    2h
    Michael Gove may have been a Brexiter but he was the only effective and decent minister in Johnson’s cabinet. His withdrawal from front bench politics is a loss. Levelling up, cladding, education , housing.. Now it really is the C team in control .

    Suddenly the left like him because he's anti the next Tory leader. Bit transparent.
    Nah. I've liked him for years, and often said so right here. He's an intelligent guy who tries to get things done and is unintimidated by obstacles.
  • BournvilleBournville Posts: 258
    I keep seeing people say that the Conservatives are on track for a 1997 style defeat at the next election.

    I think this is completely wrong.

    In 1997, the Tories enjoyed a prosperous economy, an opposition leader who basically accepted their economic policies, and a broadly competent central office which had filtered out most of the mental candidates.

    In 2024, the Tories will be going into the election with the worst economic situation in a century, an opposition leader who has refused to commit to a serious economic policy, and a broadly incompetent central office which has filtered out most of the serious candidates in favour of braindead yesmen.

    I work for them - and when people around my age ask me why, I don't have an answer. I basically treat my work as a kind of charity for pensioners. Campaigning for this party objectively makes my life worse, but it makes my grandparents' lives better.

    The Tories are heading for electoral oblivion. I've told my line manager this, my colleagues have said the same, but noone at the top of the party cares. I genuinely believe the 2024 election will be the Tory 1923 - complete collapse, with something much nastier filling the void.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson and Blair committed the cardinal sin: they chose winning elections over intellectual purity.
    It is quite a remarkable feat that only two Labour Leaders have won elections in the last seventy years. The leadership statistic not changing for another ten looks reasonable comfortable.

    Conservatives on the other hand have had three victorious leaders in the last seven and it will be four in less than ten.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    edited August 2022

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson and Blair committed the cardinal sin: they chose winning elections over intellectual purity.
    It is quite a remarkable feat that only two Labour Leaders have won elections in the last seventy years. The leadership statistic not changing for another ten looks reasonable comfortable.

    Conservatives on the other hand have had three victorious leaders in the last seven and it will be four in less than ten.
    Labour would be winning elections all the time if they picked leaders like Wilson, Blair and Attlee more often. I think David Miliband would probably have been in this category.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547

    I keep seeing people say that the Conservatives are on track for a 1997 style defeat at the next election.

    I think this is completely wrong.

    In 1997, the Tories enjoyed a prosperous economy, an opposition leader who basically accepted their economic policies, and a broadly competent central office which had filtered out most of the mental candidates.

    In 2024, the Tories will be going into the election with the worst economic situation in a century, an opposition leader who has refused to commit to a serious economic policy, and a broadly incompetent central office which has filtered out most of the serious candidates in favour of braindead yesmen.

    I work for them - and when people around my age ask me why, I don't have an answer. I basically treat my work as a kind of charity for pensioners. Campaigning for this party objectively makes my life worse, but it makes my grandparents' lives better.

    The Tories are heading for electoral oblivion. I've told my line manager this, my colleagues have said the same, but noone at the top of the party cares. I genuinely believe the 2024 election will be the Tory 1923 - complete collapse, with something much nastier filling the void.

    You WORK for the Tories?
    Surely you can do something less wicked with your time, like selling tobacco to children, or the white slave trade?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    I keep seeing people say that the Conservatives are on track for a 1997 style defeat at the next election.

    I think this is completely wrong.

    In 1997, the Tories enjoyed a prosperous economy, an opposition leader who basically accepted their economic policies, and a broadly competent central office which had filtered out most of the mental candidates.

    In 2024, the Tories will be going into the election with the worst economic situation in a century, an opposition leader who has refused to commit to a serious economic policy, and a broadly incompetent central office which has filtered out most of the serious candidates in favour of braindead yesmen.

    I work for them - and when people around my age ask me why, I don't have an answer. I basically treat my work as a kind of charity for pensioners. Campaigning for this party objectively makes my life worse, but it makes my grandparents' lives better.

    The Tories are heading for electoral oblivion. I've told my line manager this, my colleagues have said the same, but noone at the top of the party cares. I genuinely believe the 2024 election will be the Tory 1923 - complete collapse, with something much nastier filling the void.

    Unless Farage returns to lead RefUK and overtakes them as the main party of the right as the Canadian Reform Party overtook the Canadian Tories in 1993, or Le Pen's party has overtaken Les Republicains in France or Brothers of Italy and Lega Nord have overtaken Forza Italia in Italy it won't.

    That would likely require economic collapse and Truss abandoning the right to return to her youthful liberalism combined with classical liberal economics
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson and Blair committed the cardinal sin: they chose winning elections over intellectual purity.
    It is quite a remarkable feat that only two Labour Leaders have won elections in the last seventy years. The leadership statistic not changing for another ten looks reasonable comfortable.

    Conservatives on the other hand have had three victorious leaders in the last seven and it will be four in less than ten.
    Labour would be winning elections all the time if they picked leaders like Wilson, Blair and Attlee more often. I think David Miliband would probably have been in this category.
    Part of the problem seems to be that we promote potential candidates too early.

    Hague and Miliband Senior would both now make excellent PMs. Hague is 61, Miliband 57. Both are essentially in their prime, or would be if they were interested and the system enabled it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393

    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    They may be right but equally they may be wrong

    The whole point of the article is that first impressions are correct.

    And the first impression of Truss is unmitigated disaster, in a skirt.
    I'm trying to think of an exception to the principle that character is destiny, and character is largely fixed by the time you've reached Cabinet level in politics.

    Johnson was always going to crash over a silly lie. May was never supple and subtle, Cameron was always too willing to gamble on his brilliance. Brown trusted nobody. Blair was too much the Messiah. And so on.

    So- Truss's doom will come from enacting a mad idea that she refuses to be talked out of. And since she has many ideas, her game of Russian Roulette should play out fairly quickly.

    Any counterexamples?
    Wilson stepped down on his own terms. Admittedly after losing one of five elections.
    I'm not sure we can write Truss off just yet.
    But she's received the baton 20 metres behind. Running through a minefield. With the spectators shooting at her.
    It is a mystery to me why Wilson is almost written out of Labour history. Never gets mentioned.

    Although the Newstatesman this week notes that, unusually for Lab, Starmer is a fan.

    Wilson and Blair committed the cardinal sin: they chose winning elections over intellectual purity.
    It is quite a remarkable feat that only two Labour Leaders have won elections in the last seventy years. The leadership statistic not changing for another ten looks reasonable comfortable.

    Conservatives on the other hand have had three victorious leaders in the last seven and it will be four in less than ten.
    Labour would be winning elections all the time if they picked leaders like Wilson, Blair and Attlee more often. I think David Miliband would probably have been in this category.
    Part of the problem seems to be that we promote potential candidates too early.

    Hague and Miliband Senior would both now make excellent PMs. Hague is 61, Miliband 57. Both are essentially in their prime, or would be if they were interested and the system enabled it.
    Agree.
  • New thread.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
    You can't build outside Local Plans unless developers are exceptionally slow in developing to meet housing targets. Once Truss scraps housing targets even then Local Plans will not be able to be overridden.

    Of course without a Local Plan however developers can build wherever they like whenever they like
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
    You can't build outside Local Plans unless developers are exceptionally slow in developing to meet housing targets. Once Truss scraps housing targets even then Local Plans will not be able to be overridden.

    Of course without a Local Plan however developers can build wherever they like whenever they like
    You omitted the NPPF Para 12 exemption, even though I mentioned that this is not only valid, I saw it done three days ago at a Planning Committee meeting.

    A Local Plan is necessary but not sufficient.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
    You can't build outside Local Plans unless developers are exceptionally slow in developing to meet housing targets. Once Truss scraps housing targets even then Local Plans will not be able to be overridden.

    Of course without a Local Plan however developers can build wherever they like whenever they like
    You omitted the NPPF Para 12 exemption, even though I mentioned that this is not only valid, I saw it done three days ago at a Planning Committee meeting.

    A Local Plan is necessary but not sufficient.
    That exemption has to have clear material considerations to apply outside the Local Plan and be used by the Local authority. The NPPF is also advisory but not legally binding
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
    You can't build outside Local Plans unless developers are exceptionally slow in developing to meet housing targets. Once Truss scraps housing targets even then Local Plans will not be able to be overridden.

    Of course without a Local Plan however developers can build wherever they like whenever they like
    You omitted the NPPF Para 12 exemption, even though I mentioned that this is not only valid, I saw it done three days ago at a Planning Committee meeting.

    A Local Plan is necessary but not sufficient.
    That exemption has to have clear material considerations to apply outside the Local Plan and be used by the Local authority. The NPPF is also advisory but not legally binding
    WHAT?

    You have NEVER sat on a Planning Committee, have you? Have you even observed one? The NPPF is the framework on which Local Plans are built and with which it has to comply!

    I'm sorry, you need some significant training in planning.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    I mean, it's great that you're excited about your Neighbourhood Plan. And it does provide significantly more weight (as well as a 25% uplift in CIL).

    But it is NOT a get-out-of-jail free card to controlling where development does and does not go. It will not dictate where will be "safe" from development. You need a lot more ammunition (based on the LP, NPPF, and prior case law) to control that. If you lean back and rely on the NDP to dictate everything, you'll let down your residents. And I'm sure you want to do a good job.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
    You can't build outside Local Plans unless developers are exceptionally slow in developing to meet housing targets. Once Truss scraps housing targets even then Local Plans will not be able to be overridden.

    Of course without a Local Plan however developers can build wherever they like whenever they like
    You omitted the NPPF Para 12 exemption, even though I mentioned that this is not only valid, I saw it done three days ago at a Planning Committee meeting.

    A Local Plan is necessary but not sufficient.
    That exemption has to have clear material considerations to apply outside the Local Plan and be used by the Local authority. The NPPF is also advisory but not legally binding
    WHAT?

    You have NEVER sat on a Planning Committee, have you? Have you even observed one? The NPPF is the framework on which Local Plans are built and with which it has to comply!

    I'm sorry, you need some significant training in planning.
    It is still not legally binding. It also only gives Local Authorities major material considerations to diverge from the Local Plan, they can of course decide no such considerations apply and stick to the Local Plan entirely
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    HYUFD said:



    That exemption has to have clear material considerations to apply outside the Local Plan and be used by the Local authority. The NPPF is also advisory but not legally binding

    Reading this exchange is like being at Algonquin Round Table.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Not if the neighbourhood plan filters into the Local Plan

    There are several circumstances where less weight will be given to the neighbourhood plan by an Inspector, which have already been explained, such as lack of 5 year housing land supply, or simply the plan being a little old (which given they take years to prepare is pretty unfair).

    If your council or MP is telling you the Neighbourhood Plan is all that matters you have been very irresponsibly advised.

    It's why many places who have been through the process - here's a exmaple from the shires

    https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/19842909.councillor-says-malmesbury-shafted-planning/

    The shortfall issue is due to a change to put the obligation on local authorities to demonstrate land supply.

    This is compounded by the fact that Neighbourhood Plans are not given the same weight in decisions if they are more than two years old – despite that the document covers the town until 2026.

    Local Plans which neighbourhood plans filter into are for more than ten years normally and once inspector approved you cannot build outside them
    Yes, you can.

    If you do not have a five year land supply of houses in the pipeline, developers can build pretty much where they like.
    If, under para 12 of the NPPF, it is judged that material considerations are sufficiently strong, a decision that goes against the provisions of an up-to-date plan may be made.

    I have seen both occur.
    Our Local Plan has an 11 year land supply of houses.
    Which is adjusted depending on how quickly developers build out, not just on sites allocated.
    If, say, you have a site of 4200 houses allocated, grant planning permission, and the developer announces that they are going to build out there over 25 years, your effective 5 year land supply reduces.

    This isn’t in theory; this has happened near me recently.
    Both of the things I cite have happened nearby quite recently, despite us allocating loads of sites.
    The latter of the two happened on Wednesday.
    (To be fair, that was something we wanted to go through, but it was explicitly against the Local Plan and something unwanted could be pushed through similarly)
    You also have to take account of the fact Truss as PM has said she will scrap housing targets and return housing allocation almost entirely to local councils
    You've jumped from "It does, you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" in your claim that Neighbourhood Plans prevent building outside their areas to "Liz Truss will scrap housing targets"

    That's a jump from something that DOES happen to something you HOPE will change from it (words are cheap and I can't remember the last time Central Government reduced central overriding control over planning. But I can remember plenty of times when they've promised that).

    Have you heard of ONPA?
    The Oxfordshire Neighbourhood Plans Alliance (https://onpa.uk/) They set themselves up because far too often, development that did not accord with a made Neighbourhood Plan (which, of course, has to be in compliance with an existing Local Plan) WAS PUSHED THROUGH.

    You were wrong.

    "you can’t build outside the Local Plan areas allocated" was incorrect; you have been pulled up on it, with multiple people pointing out how it is possible (including at least one member of a Planning Committee in a Planning Authority), and you've instead said that in you particular circumstance one of at least two provisos doesn't apply (except your understanding was incorrect) and you are now reduced to claiming that things are promised to change.

    A promise of change is not the same as the way things currently are.
    You can't build outside Local Plans unless developers are exceptionally slow in developing to meet housing targets. Once Truss scraps housing targets even then Local Plans will not be able to be overridden.

    Of course without a Local Plan however developers can build wherever they like whenever they like
    You omitted the NPPF Para 12 exemption, even though I mentioned that this is not only valid, I saw it done three days ago at a Planning Committee meeting.

    A Local Plan is necessary but not sufficient.
    That exemption has to have clear material considerations to apply outside the Local Plan and be used by the Local authority. The NPPF is also advisory but not legally binding
    WHAT?

    You have NEVER sat on a Planning Committee, have you? Have you even observed one? The NPPF is the framework on which Local Plans are built and with which it has to comply!

    I'm sorry, you need some significant training in planning.
    It is still not legally binding. It also only gives Local Authorities major material considerations to diverge from the Local Plan, they can of course decide no such considerations apply and stick to the Local Plan entirely
    Local Plans by contrast have statutory force under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    Head.
    Desk.

    You have never tried to argue a case in front of a Planning Committee, have you? You don't know the process by which Planning Officers make their decision.

    It is not led by elected members. And they WILL make decisions you won't like. Including ones where they will decide to go against specific provisions on material considerations.

    The only one I lost l, I relied on the Local Plan. I learned from that. How many have you fought?

    Sadly, you seem incapable of learning from others when your knowledge is wrong. When you fail to learn, the only thing you can learn is to fail.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2022

    Head.
    Desk.

    You have never tried to argue a case in front of a Planning Committee, have you? You don't know the process by which Planning Officers make their decision.

    It is not led by elected members. And they WILL make decisions you won't like. Including ones where they will decide to go against specific provisions on material considerations.

    The only one I lost l, I relied on the Local Plan. I learned from that. How many have you fought?

    Sadly, you seem incapable of learning from others when your knowledge is wrong. When you fail to learn, the only thing you can learn is to fail.

    I am on the town council planning cttee.

    Planning Officers cannot overrule the majority òf the district council planning cttee either, certainly in terms of the Local Plan, they just implement their decisions.

    If you are weak in giving in that is your problem

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    The town council planning committee can only give an opinion to the decision-makers; it cannot do anything more than that. Their response will be added to all of those from statutory consultees. Don't big yourself up on that.

    If the Committee overrule a Planning Officer recommendation and refuse an application without having very sound grounds to do so (and avoiding being "weak" is not sound grounds), then the inevitable appeal will be successful and costs will be awarded against you. It's a minefield, and if you think it's about being "strong" or "weak," then you will lose far more cases than you can imagine. The Planning Inspectorate doesn't give two craps about your ego.

    If you think Planning Officers "just implement [their] decisions," you have a lot more learning to do than I thought you did. Hopefully it will not be too much to the detriment of your residents.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited August 2022

    The town council planning committee can only give an opinion to the decision-makers; it cannot do anything more than that. Their response will be added to all of those from statutory consultees. Don't big yourself up on that.

    If the Committee overrule a Planning Officer recommendation and refuse an application without having very sound grounds to do so (and avoiding being "weak" is not sound grounds), then the inevitable appeal will be successful and costs will be awarded against you. It's a minefield, and if you think it's about being "strong" or "weak," then you will lose far more cases than you can imagine. The Planning Inspectorate doesn't give two craps about your ego.

    If you think Planning Officers "just implement [their] decisions," you have a lot more learning to do than I thought you did. Hopefully it will not be too much to the detriment of your residents.

    The Local Plan has to go through the Planning Inspectorate first anyway, so it is highly unlikely they will overturn the very Plan they approved. Planning Officers advise, it is still the Planning Cttee that decide.

    If the District Planning Cttee ignore the town council planning cttee which is closer to the ground in the area they in turn likely lose their seats at the next election
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,507
    HYUFD said:

    The town council planning committee can only give an opinion to the decision-makers; it cannot do anything more than that. Their response will be added to all of those from statutory consultees. Don't big yourself up on that.

    If the Committee overrule a Planning Officer recommendation and refuse an application without having very sound grounds to do so (and avoiding being "weak" is not sound grounds), then the inevitable appeal will be successful and costs will be awarded against you. It's a minefield, and if you think it's about being "strong" or "weak," then you will lose far more cases than you can imagine. The Planning Inspectorate doesn't give two craps about your ego.

    If you think Planning Officers "just implement [their] decisions," you have a lot more learning to do than I thought you did. Hopefully it will not be too much to the detriment of your residents.

    The Local Plan has to go through the Planning Inspectorate first anyway, so it is highly unlikely they will overturn the very Plan they approved. Planning Officers advise, it is still the Planning Cttee that decide.

    If the District Planning Cttee ignore the town council planning cttee which is closer to the ground in the area they in turn likely lose their seats at the next election
    You have much to learn.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    The town council planning committee can only give an opinion to the decision-makers; it cannot do anything more than that. Their response will be added to all of those from statutory consultees. Don't big yourself up on that.

    If the Committee overrule a Planning Officer recommendation and refuse an application without having very sound grounds to do so (and avoiding being "weak" is not sound grounds), then the inevitable appeal will be successful and costs will be awarded against you. It's a minefield, and if you think it's about being "strong" or "weak," then you will lose far more cases than you can imagine. The Planning Inspectorate doesn't give two craps about your ego.

    If you think Planning Officers "just implement [their] decisions," you have a lot more learning to do than I thought you did. Hopefully it will not be too much to the detriment of your residents.

    The Local Plan has to go through the Planning Inspectorate first anyway, so it is highly unlikely they will overturn the very Plan they approved. Planning Officers advise, it is still the Planning Cttee that decide.

    If the District Planning Cttee ignore the town council planning cttee which is closer to the ground in the area they in turn likely lose their seats at the next election
    Local authority committees go against the local town or parish councils a lot you know - most of them, after all, will not be representing that parish or town in any case, so even if that was a consideration at the back of someone's mind, that would not matter because they would not be at risk of losing their seat at the next election - why would voters on the far side of the district punish someone on a planning committee for approving/refusing contrary to the wish of a town council nowhere near them?

    The local member for the area will usually argue the case of course, but the committee will make its own mind up. The plan will be of more importance than the mere views of a local council, if the views of that council are not sound (indeed, if the local council's view is due to the local plan, the officers will probably be agreeing with it). Committees will pay attention to the local council, and I've certainly seem them swayed by its views as they have by local representations, but you once again ascribe far too much power to the parish council view. You genuinely appear to believe it is all that matters, when thousands of permissions (or refusals) not desired by the local council prove otherwise.

    Example - the local parish council says they think the highway is dangerous and so permission should be refused on that basis. Highways officers and consultants say otherwise. The planning committee will almost certainly not go with the local council because if it is appealed, they will not have the actual evidence of severe harm on highways grounds that would be required. Another example - the local council and officers disagree on whether an applicaiton is contrary to the local plan. The committee go with the local council, and an inspector may or may not agree.
This discussion has been closed.