The speech in terms of expectations didn’t disappoint . It was wooden and full of vacuous nonsense , it was a box ticking exercise .
Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
That was the genius of the protest.
Masterfully executed – the two girls looked the part, were resilient to security's countermeasures and thus extracted maximum airtime.
And it was consummately conveyed – the message was clear, simple and resonated with the public.
Greenpeace HQ will be very happy indeed with how it all went.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The Tories are going to lose the next election, whether they deserve to or not.
If they're going to lose anyway, then she may as well stick to her guns and get her ideas through, that she can.
No point pandering to opinion polls if you're going to lose anyway. There can be advantages to being a lame duck.
I think that you are missing the point of the analogy. A lame duck walks around in pointless circles going nowhere.
Fair enough, I didn't know that!
I just knew it as a term from the USA, but didn't know why the term was used.
But being serious, many lame duck Presidents in America have been able to get serious movement through in their final term. Knowing you won't be running for election again and knowing that this is your final chance to get anything done for your legacy, can be liberating.
Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
I really don't think people are bothered by that, and rightly so.
If people were that bothered about it neither Cameron or Boris would have been PM.
I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.
In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
I have resisted ever going on Twitter. Their age restricted content for those not signed up is by far their most effective marketing tool to date. But I will not give in.
Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
Anyone who casts their vote based upon the type of school somebody attended should not have the vote.
And to be honest in suspect most of the state school sector are currently quietly hoping that everyone forgets Truss was a comprehensive girl. She is certainly no advert for them. (Not that I actually think it makes a blind bit of difference given her deep grained character flaws but just to counter HYUFD's suggestions)
So why were the Tory MPs so silly, as to put someone as manifestly unsuitable as Rishi Sunak on a shortlist of two?
Why was Rishi unsuitable, aside from being blamed for ousting Boris? Events have shown he could read the markets a damn sight better than Kwasi and LizT, and unlike them, Rishi had an actual plan for growth rather than just cutting taxes and wishing really hard.
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
So why were the Tory MPs so silly, as to put someone as manifestly unsuitable as Rishi Sunak on a shortlist of two?
Why was Rishi unsuitable, aside from being blamed for ousting Boris? Events have shown he could read the markets a damn sight better than Kwasi and LizT, and unlike them, Rishi had an actual plan for growth rather than just cutting taxes and wishing really hard.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The speech in terms of expectations didn’t disappoint . It was wooden and full of vacuous nonsense , it was a box ticking exercise .
Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
That was the genius of the protest.
Masterfully executed – the two girls looked the part, were resilient to security's countermeasures and thus extracted maximum airtime.
And it was consummately conveyed – the message was clear, simple and resonated with the public.
Greenpeace HQ will be very happy indeed with how it all went.
The message loses it's potency by being attached to an organisation that nobody has voted for.
So why were the Tory MPs so silly, as to put someone as manifestly unsuitable as Rishi Sunak on a shortlist of two?
Why was Rishi unsuitable, aside from being blamed for ousting Boris? Events have shown he could read the markets a damn sight better than Kwasi and LizT, and unlike them, Rishi had an actual plan for growth rather than just cutting taxes and wishing really hard.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
The Lib Dem NIMBY tendency at local level, while understandable as an electoral survival tactic, is the main thing that irritates me about my party. On most other topics there is reasonable consistency between national and local policy and messaging, but not on new development.
Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
And yet again this is wrong. We voted for a set of MPs. Those MPs are the ones who can decide whether or not to support Truss (and I hope they don't). We don't need a General Election, we need MPs with the sense to exercise their Parliamentary duty - what they were supposed to be elected for - and represent the best interests of their constituents. That may well in turn lead to a GE but that will be a decision for the MPs to make which is at it should be.
When the in-practice mechanics of the system collide with how people intuitively feel it should work, retorting "but that's not how the system works" will not change their minds or make them feel any happier, and a goverment that ignores that groundswell of public opinion is not going to have a good time.
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
Looking at the map, the "right bank" is on the left. No wonder I've been confused.
Right and Left banks of rivers are always described 'as the river flows' (ie so imagine you are facing forwards in a boat heading downstream, then the right bank is on your right).
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.
In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 43m Liz Truss’s speech portraying herself as on the side of voters against an “anti-growth coalition” is worrying some senior Labour figures.
One former strategist tells me: “If the Tories can get their discipline back - 'the anti growth coalition' is very good framing.” #CPC22
I think that depends on the scope of your imagination.
In fairness, it wasn't really really terrible. We didn't have an excursus into Peppa Pig land or anything like that. It was just dull, so, so, so dull.
The speech in terms of expectations didn’t disappoint . It was wooden and full of vacuous nonsense , it was a box ticking exercise .
Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
And yet again this is wrong. We voted for a set of MPs. Those MPs are the ones who can decide whether or not to support Truss (and I hope they don't). We don't need a General Election, we need MPs with the sense to exercise their Parliamentary duty - what they were supposed to be elected for - and represent the best interests of their constituents. That may well in turn lead to a GE but that will be a decision for the MPs to make which is at it should be.
That is correct. The parliament is not prohibited from choosing a new government. Neither is the public prohibited from to complaining that the policies now being implemented were not those in the Conservative Party Manifesto at the last GE.
The speech in terms of expectations didn’t disappoint . It was wooden and full of vacuous nonsense , it was a box ticking exercise .
Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
That was the genius of the protest.
Masterfully executed – the two girls looked the part, were resilient to security's countermeasures and thus extracted maximum airtime.
And it was consummately conveyed – the message was clear, simple and resonated with the public.
Greenpeace HQ will be very happy indeed with how it all went.
The message loses it's potency by being attached to an organisation that nobody has voted for.
Not really. They are not the ones claiming to have a democratic mandate for national policy – they are a lobby group.
So why were the Tory MPs so silly, as to put someone as manifestly unsuitable as Rishi Sunak on a shortlist of two?
Why was Rishi unsuitable, aside from being blamed for ousting Boris? Events have shown he could read the markets a damn sight better than Kwasi and LizT, and unlike them, Rishi had an actual plan for growth rather than just cutting taxes and wishing really hard.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
I always think the number of votes available from NIMBY-ism is exaggerated.
A certain amount was made of it in Chesham and Amersham to explain the Lib Dem win. But there are a few points to make.
Firstly, HS2 was really unusual in affecting a LOT of people in the constituency and almost ALL negatively as there was no station in the area. Most planning issues aren't like that - there will be a vocal group but often not huge and there will be quite a few supporters keeping their heads down as large local schemes often come with a package of benefits (a new school, road improvements, often a linked environment scheme etc). The MP in C&A will inevitably back residents over HS2 (as did the Tory MP, Cheryl Gillan) but that's just political reality and hasn't actually stopped the plan. The situation on a lot of developments is more complex and the MP will often just distance themselves from a campaign perceived as being NIMBY-led. Not always, but often.
Secondly, there were wider concerns over development in the Chilterns. But a lot of that wasn't pure anti-development NIMBY-ism. The local Council (since abolished and rolled into the Buckinghamshire unitary authority) there had been unforgivably lax in failing to even have a Local Plan, which most Council's have (not least in an area of outstanding natural beauty). A Local Plan needn't be a NIMBY-ist charter - it's simply trying to get the right development in the right parts of the borough. So development and proposed development was particularly insensitive in C&A, and the dominant local party for many years were rather lazy, and couldn't easily duck blame.
Thirdly, whilst any by-election will have some parochial issues on leaflets etc, the reality is a lot of people vote on national issues. It's rather convenient for Tories to say that they were done over in C&A by a bunch of NIMBYs (i.e. very particular local circumstances). In reality, it was a seat like quite a few others in the South of England who'd traditionally voted Tory but weren't on board with Johnson-style Conservatism, so gave him a bloody nose.
Unfortunately for Truss the news will show the Greenpeace protests. Although Truss dealt with this well the slogan who voted for this? Really sums up what many feel . The public did not vote for Truss and she is now without any democratic mandate embarking on a set of policies no one voted for apart from 80,000 Tory members .
And yet again this is wrong. We voted for a set of MPs. Those MPs are the ones who can decide whether or not to support Truss (and I hope they don't). We don't need a General Election, we need MPs with the sense to exercise their Parliamentary duty - what they were supposed to be elected for - and represent the best interests of their constituents. That may well in turn lead to a GE but that will be a decision for the MPs to make which is at it should be.
When the in-practice mechanics of the system collide with how people intuitively feel it should work, retorting "but that's not how the system works" will not change their minds or make them feel any happier, and a goverment that ignores that groundswell of public opinion is not going to have a good time.
I agree but that was not the point at hand. The point that was being made was about the system and its perceived failings. There are no failings - at least not of the sort being described - in the system. The systemic failings are in binding the MPs to parties which can then force them to act against the best interests of their constituents. This is a failing of Parliamentary rather than electoral process.
One way it could and should be changed is to insist that a sitting PM can only be replaced by the exclusive vote of the Governing party MPs and that the membership outside of Parliament can have no part in that decision.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 43m Liz Truss’s speech portraying herself as on the side of voters against an “anti-growth coalition” is worrying some senior Labour figures.
One former strategist tells me: “If the Tories can get their discipline back - 'the anti growth coalition' is very good framing.” #CPC22
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
There are relatively few hurdles left before developers building estates who can work the planning system.
Navigating the planning system as an individual OTOH is a different matter altogether.
Red tape like our Byzantine planning system doesn't act as a barrier against large corporations that can take it in their stride, it does work against smaller businesses or individuals who want to just build one or a few houses instead of an entire estate.
Christopher Hope📝 @christopherhope · 43m Liz Truss’s speech portraying herself as on the side of voters against an “anti-growth coalition” is worrying some senior Labour figures.
One former strategist tells me: “If the Tories can get their discipline back - 'the anti growth coalition' is very good framing.” #CPC22
More Hopium than Big Serge.
Utter nonsense from Hope . Worrying senior Labour figures ! Delusional , talk about polishing a turd .
Truss gives every impression of wanting to make as many enemies as possible – "the anti-growth coalition" seems to comprise 60% of the population – a point that Danny Fink makes succinctly in today's Times.
I think Truss has a point about the anti-growth/NIMBY/BANANA types, what she doesn't seem to have grasped is that the Tory party is full of such people.
The Tory MP who came on Sky right after, said that he was very in favour of growth - as long as they didn’t build anything in his constituency.
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
Looking at the map, the "right bank" is on the left. No wonder I've been confused.
Right and Left banks of rivers are always described 'as the river flows' (ie so imagine you are facing forwards in a boat heading downstream, then the right bank is on your right).
Indeed, though if you're putting a map up, it seems to me it would make more intuitive sense to say "West" rather than "right".
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
I always think the number of votes available from NIMBY-ism is exaggerated.
A certain amount was made of it in Chesham and Amersham to explain the Lib Dem win. But there are a few points to make.
Firstly, HS2 was really unusual in affecting a LOT of people in the constituency and almost ALL negatively as there was no station in the area. Most planning issues aren't like that - there will be a vocal group but often not huge and there will be quite a few supporters keeping their heads down as large local schemes often come with a package of benefits (a new school, road improvements, often a linked environment scheme etc). The MP in C&A will inevitably back residents over HS2 (as did the Tory MP, Cheryl Gillan) but that's just political reality and hasn't actually stopped the plan. The situation on a lot of developments is more complex and the MP will often just distance themselves from a campaign perceived as being NIMBY-led. Not always, but often.
Secondly, there were wider concerns over development in the Chilterns. But a lot of that wasn't pure anti-development NIMBY-ism. The local Council (since abolished and rolled into the Buckinghamshire unitary authority) there had been unforgivably lax in failing to even have a Local Plan, which most Council's have (not least in an area of outstanding natural beauty). A Local Plan needn't be a NIMBY-ist charter - it's simply trying to get the right development in the right parts of the borough. So development and proposed development was particularly insensitive in C&A, and the dominant local party for many years were rather lazy, and couldn't easily duck blame.
Thirdly, whilst any by-election will have some parochial issues on leaflets etc, the reality is a lot of people vote on national issues. It's rather convenient for Tories to say that they were done over in C&A by a bunch of NIMBYs (i.e. very particular local circumstances). In reality, it was a seat like quite a few others in the South of England who'd traditionally voted Tory but weren't on board with Johnson-style Conservatism, so gave him a bloody nose.
Yet councils across the home counties, from Guildford to Waverley to Elmbridge, Three Rivers, Tunbridge Wells to Oxfordshire County Council and even Brexit voting Chelmsford and Uttlesford have also been lost by the Tories to a combination of LDs and Independents over concerns about excessive greenbelt development in Local Plans. Even if as you say any Local Plan is better than no Local Plan at all which just leads to free for all
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
Looking at the map, the "right bank" is on the left. No wonder I've been confused.
Right and Left banks of rivers are always described 'as the river flows' (ie so imagine you are facing forwards in a boat heading downstream, then the right bank is on your right).
Indeed, though if you're putting a map up, it seems to me it would make more intuitive sense to say "West" rather than "right".
Rivers tend to meander, but in strategic terms what matters is which side of the river you’re on. Hence “left” and “right” bank instead of the potentially ambiguous “north” or “west” or whatever.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
There are relatively few hurdles left before developers building estates who can work the planning system.
Navigating the planning system as an individual OTOH is a different matter altogether.
Red tape like our Byzantine planning system doesn't act as a barrier against large corporations that can take it in their stride, it does work against smaller businesses or individuals who want to just build one or a few houses instead of an entire estate.
Again, tilting at the wrong windmills. The planning system has little impact on smaller developers in terms of its difficulty to navigate. It really isn't that complicated. Which is why thousands of people every day navigate it successfully for things like extensions.
The red tape that really causes issues for developers - particularly small companies and individuals - is the building regs. Not least because these are continually changing (planning laws are actually quite stable compared to building regs) and are very often utterly counter intuitive or downright incomprehensible and rely on the interpretation of the building inspector.
It is no coincidence that the people screaming most loudly about wanting to see planning laws scrapped are the very companies - the big developers - who you claim are most easily able to navigate them.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
Thomas C. Theiner @noclador As things are moving fast on the Kherson front I drew up a few maps to explain the situation.
A short thread🧵:
In Kherson the russians hold a sizeable bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnipro river (shaded red), which could only be supplied by two bridges, one 1/n
Looking at the map, the "right bank" is on the left. No wonder I've been confused.
Right and Left banks of rivers are always described 'as the river flows' (ie so imagine you are facing forwards in a boat heading downstream, then the right bank is on your right).
Indeed, though if you're putting a map up, it seems to me it would make more intuitive sense to say "West" rather than "right".
That can be very confusing if there are big meanders.
Remember that this was probably defined when rivers were a highway, not a barrier.
You’ll have seen a lot of charts in the past few weeks. But this one REALLY matters. The mortgage burden - the % we spend on our repayments - is heading for the highest level since the late 80s. Last time it hit these levels it preceded the biggest housing crash in modern history https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1577624054718029824/photo/1
When the in-practice mechanics of the system collide with how people intuitively feel it should work, retorting "but that's not how the system works" will not change their minds or make them feel any happier, and a goverment that ignores that groundswell of public opinion is not going to have a good time.
I agree but that was not the point at hand. The point that was being made was about the system and its perceived failings. There are no failings - at least not of the sort being described - in the system. The systemic failings are in binding the MPs to parties which can then force them to act against the best interests of their constituents. This is a failing of Parliamentary rather than electoral process.
This is again insisting that the system should operate as it mechanically does and not as the vast majority of voters intuitively feel that it does. Almost everybody votes for a party, not for an individual MP. Trying to change the system to make it less representative of that reality will I think result in people perceiving it as having been made worse, not in people changing their view of what they are trying to do when they cast a vote.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
There are relatively few hurdles left before developers building estates who can work the planning system.
Navigating the planning system as an individual OTOH is a different matter altogether.
Red tape like our Byzantine planning system doesn't act as a barrier against large corporations that can take it in their stride, it does work against smaller businesses or individuals who want to just build one or a few houses instead of an entire estate.
Well that's the same for everything from building houses to exporting widgets.
The point is that there is not some conspiracy against building houses. Super-anecdote: a friend of mine is doing it this minute in their orchard.
You could do it tomorrow morning.
Of course if the house is not situated in your neighbourhood/local plan-designated areas then there may be other issues (neighbourhood plans are routinely overridden, that said).
The only outcomes I can see now is whether the Tories will manage to hold 220-250 seats or so (not great but build-backable) or whether we are looking at sub 200 and a 1997 style rout.
I wish there were long term spread markets on seats.
Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
I really don't think people are bothered by that, and rightly so.
Maybe not but so far we have had 2 general elections pitting a private school educated leader against a comprehensive educated leader. 2001 and 2015. On both occasions the private school educated candidate won as Fettes educated Blair beat comprehensive educated Hague and Eton educated Cameron beat comprehensive educated Miliband. All were educated at Oxford after.
Next time will Truss make it a win at last for the comprehensive educated over the grammar and private school educated Starmer? Again both have Oxford degrees
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
I really don't think people are bothered by that, and rightly so.
Maybe not but so far we have had 2 general elections pitting a private school educated leader against a comprehensive educated leader. 2001 and 2015. On both occasions the private school educated candidate won as Fettes educated Blair beat comprehensive educated Hague and Eton educated Cameron beat comprehensive educated Miliband. All were educated at Oxford after.
Next time will Truss make it a win at last for the comprehensive educated over the grammar and private school educated Starmer? Again both have Oxford degrees
And will it be the second win for a blonde prime minister in a row, or will the pendulum swing back to brunettes next time? Exciting stuff…
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
Golly. Does that apply to mains sewage?
Bart is living in a world without externalities.
We have, as has @Richard_Tyndall, had this conversation with him previously.
He wants to build a house in a field down the road. But that would require the infrastructure which would in turn affect others and those others would need to have a say about this new infrastructure if it affected them.
In order to make this process more efficient, perhaps people could get together and have elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions on their behalf. So that different areas have different rules based upon the democratic mandate of the people living there. They might not want a new sewage farm on the high street.
When the in-practice mechanics of the system collide with how people intuitively feel it should work, retorting "but that's not how the system works" will not change their minds or make them feel any happier, and a goverment that ignores that groundswell of public opinion is not going to have a good time.
I agree but that was not the point at hand. The point that was being made was about the system and its perceived failings. There are no failings - at least not of the sort being described - in the system. The systemic failings are in binding the MPs to parties which can then force them to act against the best interests of their constituents. This is a failing of Parliamentary rather than electoral process.
This is again insisting that the system should operate as it mechanically does and not as the vast majority of voters intuitively feel that it does. Almost everybody votes for a party, not for an individual MP. Trying to change the system to make it less representative of that reality will I think result in people perceiving it as having been made worse, not in people changing their view of what they are trying to do when they cast a vote.
Not at all because the effect of what you are proposing is to actually give more power to the parties and less to the individual representatives. This comes back (with profuse apologies to all who have suffered this argument from me before) to the point that we should be looking to massively reduce the power of parties over MPs. There are lots of ways to do this but reinforcing the incorrect perception that we are voting for a party and therefore they can claim the mandate to do what they like and to force their MPs to acquiesce is certainly not a route we want to go down.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
I always think the number of votes available from NIMBY-ism is exaggerated.
A certain amount was made of it in Chesham and Amersham to explain the Lib Dem win. But there are a few points to make.
Firstly, HS2 was really unusual in affecting a LOT of people in the constituency and almost ALL negatively as there was no station in the area. Most planning issues aren't like that - there will be a vocal group but often not huge and there will be quite a few supporters keeping their heads down as large local schemes often come with a package of benefits (a new school, road improvements, often a linked environment scheme etc). The MP in C&A will inevitably back residents over HS2 (as did the Tory MP, Cheryl Gillan) but that's just political reality and hasn't actually stopped the plan. The situation on a lot of developments is more complex and the MP will often just distance themselves from a campaign perceived as being NIMBY-led. Not always, but often.
Secondly, there were wider concerns over development in the Chilterns. But a lot of that wasn't pure anti-development NIMBY-ism. The local Council (since abolished and rolled into the Buckinghamshire unitary authority) there had been unforgivably lax in failing to even have a Local Plan, which most Council's have (not least in an area of outstanding natural beauty). A Local Plan needn't be a NIMBY-ist charter - it's simply trying to get the right development in the right parts of the borough. So development and proposed development was particularly insensitive in C&A, and the dominant local party for many years were rather lazy, and couldn't easily duck blame.
Thirdly, whilst any by-election will have some parochial issues on leaflets etc, the reality is a lot of people vote on national issues. It's rather convenient for Tories to say that they were done over in C&A by a bunch of NIMBYs (i.e. very particular local circumstances). In reality, it was a seat like quite a few others in the South of England who'd traditionally voted Tory but weren't on board with Johnson-style Conservatism, so gave him a bloody nose.
Yet councils across the home counties, from Guildford to Waverley to Elmbridge, Three Rivers, Tunbridge Wells to Oxfordshire County Council and even Brexit voting Chelmsford and Uttlesford have also been lost by the Tories to a combination of LDs and Independents over concerns about excessive greenbelt development in Local Plans. Even if as you say any Local Plan is better than no Local Plan at all which just leads to free for all
Oh young HY, anything for a simple explanation!!!! As Sir Norfolk says, there are multiple reasons why your Conservative Party has fallen out of favour with the electorate.
If we are going to choose just one explanation, I would go for the arrogance and insensitivity of the Eton-Oxbridge bullies who have taken over your Conservative Party. Combined with their general thickness, of course. Nobody want to be identified with them.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
I always think the number of votes available from NIMBY-ism is exaggerated.
A certain amount was made of it in Chesham and Amersham to explain the Lib Dem win. But there are a few points to make.
Firstly, HS2 was really unusual in affecting a LOT of people in the constituency and almost ALL negatively as there was no station in the area. Most planning issues aren't like that - there will be a vocal group but often not huge and there will be quite a few supporters keeping their heads down as large local schemes often come with a package of benefits (a new school, road improvements, often a linked environment scheme etc). The MP in C&A will inevitably back residents over HS2 (as did the Tory MP, Cheryl Gillan) but that's just political reality and hasn't actually stopped the plan. The situation on a lot of developments is more complex and the MP will often just distance themselves from a campaign perceived as being NIMBY-led. Not always, but often.
Secondly, there were wider concerns over development in the Chilterns. But a lot of that wasn't pure anti-development NIMBY-ism. The local Council (since abolished and rolled into the Buckinghamshire unitary authority) there had been unforgivably lax in failing to even have a Local Plan, which most Council's have (not least in an area of outstanding natural beauty). A Local Plan needn't be a NIMBY-ist charter - it's simply trying to get the right development in the right parts of the borough. So development and proposed development was particularly insensitive in C&A, and the dominant local party for many years were rather lazy, and couldn't easily duck blame.
Thirdly, whilst any by-election will have some parochial issues on leaflets etc, the reality is a lot of people vote on national issues. It's rather convenient for Tories to say that they were done over in C&A by a bunch of NIMBYs (i.e. very particular local circumstances). In reality, it was a seat like quite a few others in the South of England who'd traditionally voted Tory but weren't on board with Johnson-style Conservatism, so gave him a bloody nose.
Yet councils across the home counties, from Guildford to Waverley to Elmbridge, Three Rivers, Tunbridge Wells to Oxfordshire County Council and even Brexit voting Chelmsford and Uttlesford have also been lost by the Tories to a combination of LDs and Independents over concerns about excessive greenbelt development in Local Plans. Even if as you say any Local Plan is better than no Local Plan at all which just leads to free for all
Oh young HY, anything for a simple explanation!!!! As Sir Norfolk says, there are multiple reasons why your Conservative Party has fallen out of favour with the electorate.
If we are going to choose just one explanation, I would go for the arrogance and insensitivity of the Eton-Oxbridge bullies who have taken over your Conservative Party. Combined with their general thickness, of course. Nobody want to be identified with them.
The irony being of course that Truss didn't go to Eton, even if she did go to Oxford.
The home page of the Telegraph has a quite unsettling moving image of LT giving her speech, cycling through five or six photos, none of them particularly flattering. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
Doubly clever in that from now on, Russians know about it now, so will think they are being tricked and engage, thereby adding friendly fire to their casualties.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
Golly. Does that apply to mains sewage?
State control of the sewage system inhibits the development of a free market in shit.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
Golly. Does that apply to mains sewage?
State control of the sewage system inhibits the development of a free market in shit.
Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
I really don't think people are bothered by that, and rightly so.
Maybe not but so far we have had 2 general elections pitting a private school educated leader against a comprehensive educated leader. 2001 and 2015. On both occasions the private school educated candidate won as Fettes educated Blair beat comprehensive educated Hague and Eton educated Cameron beat comprehensive educated Miliband. All were educated at Oxford after.
Next time will Truss make it a win at last for the comprehensive educated over the grammar and private school educated Starmer? Again both have Oxford degrees
And will it be the second win for a blonde prime minister in a row, or will the pendulum swing back to brunettes next time? Exciting stuff…
As this is pedanticbetting.com I feel duty bound to point out that it won't be a brunette, as that is an exclusively feminine term. One of the few in the English language (blond/e being another).
Liz Truss gave a lacklustre speech to a party that’s, in some respects, given up the will to live.
One cabinet minister told me last night: “It’s the end of an era. We’ve been in power for 12 years and we have no fight left.”
It's not just ministers, it's activists, lobbyists. Everyone senses it could be over and the Tories just don't want it any more.
One lobbyist told me their boss had requested a refund because the ministers they paid to meet were so all over the place.
The Tories have rattled through every conceivable ideology post-Brexit & don't seem to have any new ideas. Truss thought Thatcherite economics was the answer. But for big reform you need public consent and political space. She had neither.
Loyalists I spoke with who attempted to defend Truss would lose their train of thought before giving up or resort to frustrated yelling. Officials working for the party were often spotted gathered in small huddles looking visibly shaken and irritable
Tl;dr: conference was awful and the Tories don't have much time to clean up this mess of their own making
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
Golly. Does that apply to mains sewage?
State control of the sewage system inhibits the development of a free market in shit.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
If you want to do that, councils need an awful lot more income per person than they currently get.
Which would probably be a lot more honest, and save them from contorted developer contributions and one-off funding bids, but won't necessarily be popular.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
So you now want to scrap s106. Allow developers to build wherever they like with no infrastructure attached. Then have huge council tax rises for local residents.
About the most unpopular development proposals you could have!
It seems to me that it is a combination of both the planning process *and* building regulations that has effectively turned development into an oligopoly in the U.K.
As an aside, it’s astonishing that a local authority should be allowed *not* to have a local plan. It should be a statutory requirement.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I think it's related to the more general requirement of being able to distinguish military and civilian personnel. Also, it makes it a lot harder to hold each side to account for their actions more generally if you can't temporally identify which side a unit is on.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
I always think the number of votes available from NIMBY-ism is exaggerated.
A certain amount was made of it in Chesham and Amersham to explain the Lib Dem win. But there are a few points to make.
Firstly, HS2 was really unusual in affecting a LOT of people in the constituency and almost ALL negatively as there was no station in the area. Most planning issues aren't like that - there will be a vocal group but often not huge and there will be quite a few supporters keeping their heads down as large local schemes often come with a package of benefits (a new school, road improvements, often a linked environment scheme etc). The MP in C&A will inevitably back residents over HS2 (as did the Tory MP, Cheryl Gillan) but that's just political reality and hasn't actually stopped the plan. The situation on a lot of developments is more complex and the MP will often just distance themselves from a campaign perceived as being NIMBY-led. Not always, but often.
Secondly, there were wider concerns over development in the Chilterns. But a lot of that wasn't pure anti-development NIMBY-ism. The local Council (since abolished and rolled into the Buckinghamshire unitary authority) there had been unforgivably lax in failing to even have a Local Plan, which most Council's have (not least in an area of outstanding natural beauty). A Local Plan needn't be a NIMBY-ist charter - it's simply trying to get the right development in the right parts of the borough. So development and proposed development was particularly insensitive in C&A, and the dominant local party for many years were rather lazy, and couldn't easily duck blame.
Thirdly, whilst any by-election will have some parochial issues on leaflets etc, the reality is a lot of people vote on national issues. It's rather convenient for Tories to say that they were done over in C&A by a bunch of NIMBYs (i.e. very particular local circumstances). In reality, it was a seat like quite a few others in the South of England who'd traditionally voted Tory but weren't on board with Johnson-style Conservatism, so gave him a bloody nose.
Yet councils across the home counties, from Guildford to Waverley to Elmbridge, Three Rivers, Tunbridge Wells to Oxfordshire County Council and even Brexit voting Chelmsford and Uttlesford have also been lost by the Tories to a combination of LDs and Independents over concerns about excessive greenbelt development in Local Plans. Even if as you say any Local Plan is better than no Local Plan at all which just leads to free for all
Oh young HY, anything for a simple explanation!!!! As Sir Norfolk says, there are multiple reasons why your Conservative Party has fallen out of favour with the electorate.
If we are going to choose just one explanation, I would go for the arrogance and insensitivity of the Eton-Oxbridge bullies who have taken over your Conservative Party. Combined with their general thickness, of course. Nobody want to be identified with them.
The only majorities won by the Conservative party for 30 years have been by Eton and Oxford educated leaders.
Not that your comment had anything to do with Local Plans.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
So you now want to scrap s106. Allow developers to build wherever they like with no infrastructure attached. Then have huge council tax rises for local residents.
About the most unpopular development proposals you could have!
And that is the crunch for the growth, growth, growth agenda. You don't have to be part of some anti-growth coalition to want wildlife protection, companies to not pollute waterways, landscapes to be protected and for developers to fund some of the costs that they impose on local roads and services.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
You could do worse than this -
1) set out development plan 2) create street plan. Lay services. 3) sell planning permission’d plots at auction , with a requirement to build a property on it by date X or the property reverts to the council/whatever body is doing the overarching development. Minimum auction price is set to pay for the infrastructure for said plot.
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
The council is voted in by the residents so that they can make these decisions. It is democracy at work to disallow someone from building a multi-storey block of flats in a village field if the villagers don't want it to be built there and would have to pay, via their Council tax, if it was built.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
This is an interesting legal grey area given Z is not an official insignia of the Russian armed forces but rather a “brand” they’ve adopted for the SMO.
Equivalent I suppose might be Russian tanks carrying a picture of a NAFO Shiba Inu dog, or writing “Slava Ukraini”.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
Yes. That's why their characters would have been shot if they were caught.
In summary: because under the rules of war and therefore to be protected bY them if you are a combatant you are required to clearly identify which side you are on.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
As the article makes clear a Truss defeat kills off her vision within the party for a generation. Romantic Toryism and nationalist British Gaullism would return to replace it
How's it a flaw? Yes she's said that NIMBYs are a problem, and she's right to do so. And she's promised proposals (and given outlines) on fixing that problem, which would be great if it goes through.
The bigger problem is that the backbench rebels will probably defeat her reforms, as they did when Boris tried to get sensible zoning reforms through, in which case the Tories deserve to lose the next election.
The problem the Tory party has is build or trigger the building sufficient houses where they are needed and that seat is probably a "Home County Lib Dem*" win come the next election
* other Lib Dem parties with different policies are available where nimby votes aren't important...
They're in office, they're responsible.
If they succeed in getting the laws right so homes are built, then that may lead to a Lib Dem win.
If they fail to get the laws right so homes aren't built, then they deserve to lose the seat to the Lib Dems anyway.
If you're not going to use your limited time in office to do something for the good of the country, only to try to extend your limited time in office, then you don't deserve any time in the first place.
There is very little legislation or regulation against a vast amount of home building. The presumption just about anywhere for planning permission is that it will be granted.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
I am afraid trying to point out that obvious truth to Bart is simply banging your head against a wall. I know, I have had this fight many times before. His perception of the scope and effect of planning laws is very far removed from reality.
The scope and effect of planning laws, as we've discussed before, is to put the power for developing homes into the hands of "developers" that can navigate those laws and can have the scale to do the burdens put upon them for an entire estate.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
So who would pay for those services - if not the companies profiteering from the development???
The Council from Council Tax etc
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
So you now want to scrap s106. Allow developers to build wherever they like with no infrastructure attached. Then have huge council tax rises for local residents.
About the most unpopular development proposals you could have!
And that is the crunch for the growth, growth, growth agenda. You don't have to be part of some anti-growth coalition to want wildlife protection, companies to not pollute waterways, landscapes to be protected and for developers to fund some of the costs that they impose on local roads and services.
Growth is not good if it is a cancer.
I do think message discipline is important for Labour on this. Avoid getting into a growth is good / growth is bad argument. That’s fighting in Truss’s patch. Better to keep banging home the point that her policies won’t deliver growth and might well deliver stagnation if interest rates shoot up.
This is an interesting legal grey area given Z is not an official insignia of the Russian armed forces but rather a “brand” they’ve adopted for the SMO.
Equivalent I suppose might be Russian tanks carrying a picture of a NAFO Shiba Inu dog, or writing “Slava Ukraini”.
The other problem might be Ukrainian forces using actual Russian tanks they acquired along the way...
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
In short yes, they were. As were Otto Skorzeny's troops in US uniforms. Camouflage is very different from putting on your opponents uniform, walking up to him, saying 'I say my old chap, pip pip' and then slitting his throat.
Truss also gives the electorate a choice, will they re elect her, the first UK PM elected solely at a comprehensive for secondary education? Or the grammar and private school educated Sir Keir?
I really don't think people are bothered by that, and rightly so.
Maybe not but so far we have had 2 general elections pitting a private school educated leader against a comprehensive educated leader. 2001 and 2015. On both occasions the private school educated candidate won as Fettes educated Blair beat comprehensive educated Hague and Eton educated Cameron beat comprehensive educated Miliband. All were educated at Oxford after.
Next time will Truss make it a win at last for the comprehensive educated over the grammar and private school educated Starmer? Again both have Oxford degrees
And will it be the second win for a blonde prime minister in a row, or will the pendulum swing back to brunettes next time? Exciting stuff…
As this is pedanticbetting.com I feel duty bound to point out that it won't be a brunette, as that is an exclusively feminine term. One of the few in the English language (blond/e being another).
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
You can't be treated as a prisoner of war if you weren't in uniform. That doesn't necessarily make you a war criminal.
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I thought it was more that you waive certain rights under the Geneva Convention if you are not in the correct uniform and/or don't have the correct markings.
Seems that was wrong?
The precedents on this go back to the Napoleonic wars. Royal Navy ships flying French colours to deceive the enemy mostly.
You are allowed to wear enemy uniforms, fly flags etc as a legitimate ruse, but only if you don’t actually engage in combat while doing so.
Hence Skorzeny and Co getting found not guilty for the infiltration stuff at the battle of The Bulge. Skorzeny had given orders and had implemented arrangements to drop American flags etc, raise the German flag etc. before opening fire.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I think it's related to the more general requirement of being able to distinguish military and civilian personnel. Also, it makes it a lot harder to hold each side to account for their actions more generally if you can't temporally identify which side a unit is on.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
The first bit of the answer is "Do No Harm".
One of the reasons the UK is on the state it is in is impatient people coming in saying "Things are no good, we need to knock it all down and start again."
That is not to say that life was sufficiently good for everyone in (say) 2014. But since then, we have had wave after wave of zealots knocking things down. If we've been lucky, they have had crackpot ideas of what to do next, but many have deliberately had no idea at all.
And that has exaggerated the British tendency to take the money and run. Why invest, why defer the payout, if some idiot politician might destroy your business next year on a whim?
Assuming that it's going to be Starmer, his first job is going to be to make everything... calmer. My guess is that will improve growth by a notch or two by itself. And then we can see what else needs fixing
Not at all because the effect of what you are proposing is to actually give more power to the parties and less to the individual representatives. This comes back (with profuse apologies to all who have suffered this argument from me before) to the point that we should be looking to massively reduce the power of parties over MPs. There are lots of ways to do this but reinforcing the incorrect perception that we are voting for a party and therefore they can claim the mandate to do what they like and to force their MPs to acquiesce is certainly not a route we want to go down.
I think where we differ is that I don't take "voting for a party" as an 'incorrect perception' -- I think it is what most voters *actually want to do* and that we should prefer a system that helps them do what they want to do over one that sort of in practice lets them do it via indirect mechanics, and introduces unintended and sometime unfair outcomes in the process. Compare the US electoral college -- most US voters want to vote for a president, but they're having to do it via a weird system that introduces unfairnesses and unexpected points of weakness; the solution is not to educate voters and persuade them that they should be casting their vote to choose individual EC representatives, but to reform or abolish the EC so that voters really do get to vote for the president.
Looks like the Ukrainians in NE Kherson took the bold step of painting a Z on their vehicles and just charged through the Russian lines without engaging. The Russians, seeing fleeing "Russian" vehicles, then did the same... Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them and those following up behind.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
That could potentially be a war crime under Article 8 of the ICC statutes.
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
Interesting and surprising. I had to go look that up (and almost suffered a Kryten/Rimmer moment in the process).
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
I think it's related to the more general requirement of being able to distinguish military and civilian personnel. Also, it makes it a lot harder to hold each side to account for their actions more generally if you can't temporally identify which side a unit is on.
Hague Convention 1907 is the origin of the abuse of insignia rule but it seems to be still OK to fly false flags on warships
Might just be hollywood and endless Napoleonic war seafaring fiction, but they all seem happy to fly false flags, BUT all must show the true flag before actually attacking, even if for a few seconds.
This feels very like '97. The country feels like it is waking up from a nightmare.This government is not just becoming a laughing stock it's becoming reviled.
97 Labour was clearly popular and well regarded. Now it is more like they can't be any worse than the muppets.
This is absolutely right. It is not so much that Labour are a popular choice, but the Tories are falling apart.
If Majors government had been experiencing this sort of dysfunction 1997 would have probably left the Tories sub-100 seats.
The reason Labour will win the next GE is because pretty much anyone can look at the government now and say that they need to be removed. Labour are the alternative and whilst SKS is not Blair, they look measured and competent so it’s worth giving them a go.
It does however present a danger for Labour and Starmer in particular. Being elected because 'you are not the other guys' does mean your support is generally shallow and likely to evaporate very quickly. If and when Starmer does win he will not be able to rest on his laurels or claim some great sea change in politics. He will have to prove that his party really is different and can make a difference or his prospects will very rapidly decline.
Any port in a storm doesn't transform Grimsby into Rotterdam.
You are absolutely right again Richard. leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
What planet are you living on?
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
This is where I claim the Labour conference last week was poor, I ask you to what degree did it engage with the pressure on UK from globalisation, demographic time bomb (and permanent higher inflation it brings) and transformation to UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment. Or was Labours a safety first conference - For all talk of not being Corbyn anymore it’s now very different, the proof of the pudding will be comparing what Starmer’s manifesto has to say about the main issues, compared to the solutions in Corbyn’s manifesto.
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
If your aim at the start of the day was "can I be really, really obtuse on PB today?" Mission accomplished!
Stop playing dum. We know you are intelligent, that cats out the bag,
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on. For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Comments
Masterfully executed – the two girls looked the part, were resilient to security's countermeasures and thus extracted maximum airtime.
And it was consummately conveyed – the message was clear, simple and resonated with the public.
Greenpeace HQ will be very happy indeed with how it all went.
I just knew it as a term from the USA, but didn't know why the term was used.
But being serious, many lame duck Presidents in America have been able to get serious movement through in their final term. Knowing you won't be running for election again and knowing that this is your final chance to get anything done for your legacy, can be liberating.
No, it was Liz Truss.
Supply is not the problem, affordability (or conversely the IRR of the developers) is the problem.
You are tilting at windmills demanding that restrictions be removed when there are precious few hurdles to building more homes today.
Edit: first google - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-building-stats-show-continued-increase-in-starts-and-completions-despite-pandemic
leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics.
This is where the Labour conference last week was poor, it was reactionary in the sense it didn’t engage with UKs problems as coherently as Truss platform does this week, Labour doesn’t challenge a consensus that is creaking at the seams with the pressure from globalisation, demographic time bomb, UKs post industrial society woefully behind curve on training and investment and transformation.
Just as you said, Labours was a muggings turn, safety first conference - but there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and then out for eighteen whilst rival philosophy wields the blade and makes the necessary changes.
3 words
Is that it
The Ukrainians will be in Berislav shortly judging by the current progress. Running across the dam is going to be...dangerous.
You'd better decide which side your on.
Christopher Hope📝
@christopherhope
·
43m
Liz Truss’s speech portraying herself as on the side of voters against an “anti-growth coalition” is worrying some senior Labour figures.
One former strategist tells me: “If the Tories can get their discipline back - 'the anti growth coalition' is very good framing.” #CPC22
More Hopium than Big Serge.
To quote Abbey, that is the ideology of a cancer cell.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1577633612874358786
Just need it the side of a bus now...
A certain amount was made of it in Chesham and Amersham to explain the Lib Dem win. But there are a few points to make.
Firstly, HS2 was really unusual in affecting a LOT of people in the constituency and almost ALL negatively as there was no station in the area. Most planning issues aren't like that - there will be a vocal group but often not huge and there will be quite a few supporters keeping their heads down as large local schemes often come with a package of benefits (a new school, road improvements, often a linked environment scheme etc). The MP in C&A will inevitably back residents over HS2 (as did the Tory MP, Cheryl Gillan) but that's just political reality and hasn't actually stopped the plan. The situation on a lot of developments is more complex and the MP will often just distance themselves from a campaign perceived as being NIMBY-led. Not always, but often.
Secondly, there were wider concerns over development in the Chilterns. But a lot of that wasn't pure anti-development NIMBY-ism. The local Council (since abolished and rolled into the Buckinghamshire unitary authority) there had been unforgivably lax in failing to even have a Local Plan, which most Council's have (not least in an area of outstanding natural beauty). A Local Plan needn't be a NIMBY-ist charter - it's simply trying to get the right development in the right parts of the borough. So development and proposed development was particularly insensitive in C&A, and the dominant local party for many years were rather lazy, and couldn't easily duck blame.
Thirdly, whilst any by-election will have some parochial issues on leaflets etc, the reality is a lot of people vote on national issues. It's rather convenient for Tories to say that they were done over in C&A by a bunch of NIMBYs (i.e. very particular local circumstances). In reality, it was a seat like quite a few others in the South of England who'd traditionally voted Tory but weren't on board with Johnson-style Conservatism, so gave him a bloody nose.
One way it could and should be changed is to insist that a sitting PM can only be replaced by the exclusive vote of the Governing party MPs and that the membership outside of Parliament can have no part in that decision.
https://unherd.com/2022/09/has-liz-truss-trapped-labour/
Navigating the planning system as an individual OTOH is a different matter altogether.
Red tape like our Byzantine planning system doesn't act as a barrier against large corporations that can take it in their stride, it does work against smaller businesses or individuals who want to just build one or a few houses instead of an entire estate.
Yep - the protester was rather rubbish.
"Truss's platform engages with the UK's problems" (my paraphrase).
"Growth is good. Growth is what we need to address Britain's problems. I have facilitated growth". Fantastic, but they are just meaningless platitudes. You could easily substitute "growth" for "magic" or "unicorns" or just "bullshit". Each statement would mean no more or no less.
The red tape that really causes issues for developers - particularly small companies and individuals - is the building regs. Not least because these are continually changing (planning laws are actually quite stable compared to building regs) and are very often utterly counter intuitive or downright incomprehensible and rely on the interpretation of the building inspector.
It is no coincidence that the people screaming most loudly about wanting to see planning laws scrapped are the very companies - the big developers - who you claim are most easily able to navigate them.
Issues like schools, services etc should be completely divorced from house building, no individual home is responsible for needing a school or any other service.
The chutzpah of the Ukrainians is quite remarkable.
No doubt the Russian ambassador will be bleating "It's not fair...."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-63131823
Remember that this was probably defined when rivers were a highway, not a barrier.
But this one REALLY matters.
The mortgage burden - the % we spend on our repayments - is heading for the highest level since the late 80s.
Last time it hit these levels it preceded the biggest housing crash in modern history https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1577624054718029824/photo/1
The point is that there is not some conspiracy against building houses. Super-anecdote: a friend of mine is doing it this minute in their orchard.
You could do it tomorrow morning.
Of course if the house is not situated in your neighbourhood/local plan-designated areas then there may be other issues (neighbourhood plans are routinely overridden, that said).
I'm not sure what you are complaining about.
Next time will Truss make it a win at last for the comprehensive educated over the grammar and private school educated Starmer? Again both have Oxford degrees
there’s little point of a political movement being in power 5 years changing nothing, and out for eighteen years whilst rival philosophy as clear as Tory’s now laying down, wields the blade and makes necessary changes.
My own one nation instincts are not liking two nation solutions that widen the apartheid of the pocket, so leaving opponents as the only ones with solutions to the problems on the table has to be rubbish politics. Doesn’t it?
"If there's a coup, look for the high office loyalists to come through"
However, that does rather depend on whether the 'Z' is considered enemy insignia or not. It may not be since Russia has never actually declared war.
Equally the Ukrainians would be wise to remember that they will want the ICC's help if they're to punish some of these criminals they are pursuing, and therefore they need to be as far as possible beyond reproach themselves.
We have, as has @Richard_Tyndall, had this conversation with him previously.
He wants to build a house in a field down the road. But that would require the infrastructure which would in turn affect others and those others would need to have a say about this new infrastructure if it affected them.
In order to make this process more efficient, perhaps people could get together and have elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions on their behalf. So that different areas have different rules based upon the democratic mandate of the people living there. They might not want a new sewage farm on the high street.
Just a thought.
If we are going to choose just one explanation, I would go for the arrogance and insensitivity of the Eton-Oxbridge bullies who have taken over your Conservative Party. Combined with their general thickness, of course. Nobody want to be identified with them.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/
It could be a brunet – but that is rarely used.
One cabinet minister told me last night: “It’s the end of an era. We’ve been in power for 12 years and we have no fight left.”
It's not just ministers, it's activists, lobbyists. Everyone senses it could be over and the Tories just don't want it any more.
One lobbyist told me their boss had requested a refund because the ministers they paid to meet were so all over the place.
The Tories have rattled through every conceivable ideology post-Brexit & don't seem to have any new ideas. Truss thought Thatcherite economics was the answer. But for big reform you need public consent and political space. She had neither.
Loyalists I spoke with who attempted to defend Truss would lose their train of thought before giving up or resort to frustrated yelling. Officials working for the party were often spotted gathered in small huddles looking visibly shaken and irritable
Tl;dr: conference was awful and the Tories don't have much time to clean up this mess of their own making
http://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/05/uk/liz-truss-conservative-party-conference-speech-gbr-intl/index.html
Article 8
2. For the purpose of this Statute, " war crimes " means:
vii: Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and
uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive
emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal
injury;
I am genuinely surprised at that. Why should it be a war crime to commit a deception by bearing the insignia of an enemy? Surely that is simply a normal part of covert operations? Were Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood war criminals then?
More houses means more Council Tax means more funding for schools.
If an elderly couple die and their house is sold and is bought by someone with children then the demand for schools may change, but you don't expect them to build a new school for that home do you?
If a young couple buy a home, then live in it for fifty years, they may then need social care rather than schooling.
Demands change. The Council should handle that from its taxes for the services it provides.
Seems that was wrong?
Which would probably be a lot more honest, and save them from contorted developer contributions and one-off funding bids, but won't necessarily be popular.
About the most unpopular development proposals you could have!
As an aside, it’s astonishing that a local authority should be allowed *not* to have a local plan. It should be a statutory requirement.
Not that your comment had anything to do with Local Plans.
To me good politics is engaging and winning the arguments, not coasting along safety first. You have to play the long game, and this means arguing and winning the argument. Last weeks Labour conference was poor on this benchmark.
But don’t just ask me what planet I am on for suggesting this, ask Ganesh - one of the more left wing economic columnists around, what planet he is on.
For him the exact opposite of a Pyrrhic victory is a defeat that turns out to bring success in the long run
https://archive.ph/7PTcI
If Trussnomics attempting to answer the problems facing UK today, and Starmerology 😴 isn’t, that’s the very opposite of good politics, it’s a Pyrrhic victory regardless what opinion polls say going into the next election - if Tory’s go into 2029 election both challenging the consensus with their radical solutions, and ahead in the polls.
Growth is not good if it is a cancer.
1) set out development plan
2) create street plan. Lay services.
3) sell planning permission’d plots at auction , with a requirement to build a property on it by date X or the property reverts to the council/whatever body is doing the overarching development. Minimum auction price is set to pay for the infrastructure for said plot.
Equivalent I suppose might be Russian tanks carrying a picture of a NAFO Shiba Inu dog, or writing “Slava Ukraini”.
In summary: because under the rules of war and therefore to be protected bY them if you are a combatant you are required to clearly identify which side you are on.
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/combatants
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/uniform
Liz Truss drops Isaac Levido, the campaigner party-credited with the 2019 Tory election landslide.
Subscribe for free:
http://telegraph.co.uk/politicsnewsletter https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1577646695302762497/photo/1
However, if you while out of uniform use that advantage to kill or injure an enemy combatant - as appears to have happened in this case - that is a horse of a different colour.
And think about it, if that rule wasn't there, war would be even more of a mess than it is. Every civilian, for a start, could be considered an enemy combatant and killed.
You are allowed to wear enemy uniforms, fly flags etc as a legitimate ruse, but only if you don’t actually engage in combat while doing so.
Hence Skorzeny and Co getting found not guilty for the infiltration stuff at the battle of The Bulge. Skorzeny had given orders and had implemented arrangements to drop American flags etc, raise the German flag etc. before opening fire.
Hague Convention 1907 is the origin of the abuse of insignia rule but it seems to be still OK to fly false flags on warships
Only on PB.
One of the reasons the UK is on the state it is in is impatient people coming in saying "Things are no good, we need to knock it all down and start again."
That is not to say that life was sufficiently good for everyone in (say) 2014. But since then, we have had wave after wave of zealots knocking things down. If we've been lucky, they have had crackpot ideas of what to do next, but many have deliberately had no idea at all.
And that has exaggerated the British tendency to take the money and run. Why invest, why defer the payout, if some idiot politician might destroy your business next year on a whim?
Assuming that it's going to be Starmer, his first job is going to be to make everything... calmer. My guess is that will improve growth by a notch or two by itself. And then we can see what else needs fixing