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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
When Truss goes on about policies supposedly promoting growth being the be all and the end all, does she at all take the time to consider Govt’s/chancellors who have done that in the past (especially over the sort of timescale she needs politically) and where is has all ended in economic disaster??
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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
I think they were executed for spying. But I don't believe they were in breach of the Geneva Conventions for wearing the enemy uniforms. Given that is of course the risk I am surprised that in addition we make it a war crime.
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.
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
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
I think they were executed for spying. But I don't believe they were in breach of the Geneva Conventions for wearing the enemy uniforms. Given that is of course the risk I am surprised that in addition we make it a war crime.
The US at the time took the view that it was illegitimate.
The trials after the war - including the famous war crimes trials - took the view that it was legit if you hauled down flags 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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
I think they were executed for spying. But I don't believe they were in breach of the Geneva Conventions for wearing the enemy uniforms. Given that is of course the risk I am surprised that in addition we make it a war crime.
They might not be if they took them off before fighting and put their proper uniforms back on. Skorzeny himself was tried and acquitted on that basis.
Whether this happened here or not I don't know, which is why I used the word 'potentially.'
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?
Restored on the DVD of Where Eagles Dare is the original final scene where Burton and Eastwood are convicted and executed. I think it brings back the Director's original vision of complete historical accuracy in all aspects.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
The RN did it in the Napoleonic Wars all the time, at least if Patrick O'Brien is to be believed
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
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.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
It seems to me that the biggest anti-growth coalition is the Conservative Party.
They are the party of rentierism, barriers to trade, low investment, and picking the pockets of the economically productive in order to support their economically idle client base.
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?
Restored on the DVD of Where Eagles Dare is the original final scene where Burton and Eastwood are convicted and executed. I think it brings back the Director's original vision of complete historical accuracy in all aspects.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
Depends a bit on whether their country is technically at war or not.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
On war crimes, has anyone on the winning side (Of any war ever) been succesfully prosecuted for a war crime ?
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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
I think they were executed for spying. But I don't believe they were in breach of the Geneva Conventions for wearing the enemy uniforms. Given that is of course the risk I am surprised that in addition we make it a war crime.
The US at the time took the view that it was illegitimate.
The trials after the war - including the famous war crimes trials - took the view that it was legit if you hauled down flags etc before opening fire.
That's what happens in the Aubrey–Maturin series so, given the author was a stickler for accuracy, is probably what happened in the past.
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
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.
So the continental approach - nothing at all wrong with but if it's good enough for the EU Brexit means we simply can't implement it...
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
Oh yes I agree. I was just genuinely surprised and I do think it isa dangerous precedent to take given how often oppressive regimes refer to partisans as criminals and terrorists. It seems we are supporting that view (even though I do now see the reason for 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.
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.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
Britain pretty much the weakest, worst funded local government in the OECD.
Again, a sane government would be looking at this as a growth measure. But Tories are instinctively against decentralisation.
So are Labour, although there are signs of an important shift there.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
On war crimes, has anyone on the winning side (Of any war ever) been succesfully prosecuted for a war crime ?
At least one British soldier was prosecuted for murdering a prisoner in Afghanistan, IIRC.
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
But from the discussion above, it would appear that if the Ukrainians didn't open fire - which they didn't, they just drove past - then it's a legitimate tactic.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
On war crimes, has anyone on the winning side (Of any war ever) been succesfully prosecuted for a war crime ?
At least one British soldier was prosecuted for murdering a prisoner in Afghanistan, IIRC.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
I assume the Tories had to pay for its use. At what point does the law get involved? If I recall correctly bakers have lost cases for refusing to make cakes for gay couples (as the bakers are religious). Does not something similar apply here? The party pays the money to use the song, the owner of the rights is not allowed to refuse them? Unless politics is not protected in the way that sexual preference is?
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
But from the discussion above, it would appear that if the Ukrainians didn't open fire - which they didn't, they just drove past - then it's a legitimate tactic.
'Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them'
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
On war crimes, has anyone on the winning side (Of any war ever) been succesfully prosecuted for a war crime ?
At least one British soldier was prosecuted for murdering a prisoner in Afghanistan, IIRC.
Abu Ghraib springs to mind as well.
I'm not convinced we were on the winning side there.
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
Best of luck holding onto a red wall seat if you push that through.
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?
Some of Otto Skorzeny’s troops were executed by the US for wearing US uniforms, carrying US weapons and driving jeeps during the Battle of the Bulge, IIRC. It’s a thing. It is a bit surprising when you stop to think about it though, it does seem a legitimate deception.
The RN did it in the Napoleonic Wars all the time, at least if Patrick O'Brien is to be believed
German sea raiders in WW1/WW2 ... British Q ships in WW1 ...
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
I once suggested to a politician friend that his party stood on a manifesto of "We're not going to do anything for five years - just leave it all alone and keep things ticking over". He wasn't up for it sadly.
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
But from the discussion above, it would appear that if the Ukrainians didn't open fire - which they didn't, they just drove past - then it's a legitimate tactic.
'Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them'
Could be ambiguous, as in a different group of Ukranians, but it does sound like the ones who drove past.
It seems to me that the biggest anti-growth coalition is the Conservative Party.
They are the party of rentierism, barriers to trade, low investment, and picking the pockets of the economically productive in order to support their economically idle client base.
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?
Restored on the DVD of Where Eagles Dare is the original final scene where Burton and Eastwood are convicted and executed. I think it brings back the Director's original vision of complete historical accuracy in all aspects.
Oh Doug you tinker
I was always the knob at the back of the class making snide comments when he had nothing to contribute! Some things don't change I'm afraid...
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?
Restored on the DVD of Where Eagles Dare is the original final scene where Burton and Eastwood are convicted and executed. I think it brings back the Director's original vision of complete historical accuracy in all aspects.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
On war crimes, has anyone on the winning side (Of any war ever) been succesfully prosecuted for a war crime ?
At least one British soldier was prosecuted for murdering a prisoner in Afghanistan, IIRC.
Abu Ghraib springs to mind as well.
I'm not convinced we were on the winning side there.
Just thinking where I'd pitch the GE seat spread for Labour if I was offering the market (which I'm most certainly not): 305/310?
There's a man hoping his Lay of Lab Maj will be turned around.
Ha. No, I've eaten it.
Where would you offer it right now then?
Ooh - hmm
Evens is my instinctive guess.
Labour is a long way ahead now, and I'd say Evens. But if forced I'd be a backer not a layer of Even money. So it's got to be slightly shorter. And we're a long way off a GE; and Labour has plenty of seats to make up.
So I think 5-6.
If forced I'd buy at the current 40% or so, I'm in other markets which I think (HOPE !) I can guess better for now.
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
Britain pretty much the weakest, worst funded local government in the OECD.
Again, a sane government would be looking at this as a growth measure. But Tories are instinctively against decentralisation.
So are Labour, although there are signs of an important shift there.
Too many governments of all stripes have wanted central control. Personally would prefer much more local power. Let local councils raise and keep the council tax and business rates, and let them set the levels too. Get genuine competition between areas.
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
But from the discussion above, it would appear that if the Ukrainians didn't open fire - which they didn't, they just drove past - then it's a legitimate tactic.
'Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them'
Depends if the Ukrainians used the ruse to get ahead, covered the Z etc, then attacked the Russians.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He doesn't want the job, it's very clear.
Now Braverman - there's someone who clearly believes they'll be PM one day.
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.
I think they will just file that under "the least of Ukraine's worries...."
Especially today, with the finding of a big collection of gold teeth extracted from Ukrainians in a torture facility.
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.
(I find it astounding that it's not compulsory anywhere in the UK.)
Remember a year or two back one of us came across this amazing map shpwing public views of the planning system in the UK? There was approval north of the border - disapproval south of it. Didn't seem to be a polling error or methodological difference. Something else was different, but we couldn't pin it 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...
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
That's a different argument - the general point is that building x,000 houses requires additional infrastructure which have significant upfront costs. That money can't come from day to day council budgets so it needs to come from somewhere which is where the S106 comes into place...
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Yes. Buying music doesn't automatically confer the right to play it in public, or broadcast it, or use it in gatherings not considered private groups. Different permissions are needed for that and very often, a royalty fee.
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.
But that would also make every Partisan who fought in WW2 a war criminal as well. I am not sure that is a road we should be going down.
Whether it is or not, them's the rules at the moment. Which is why the Ukrainians need to be very careful here.
But from the discussion above, it would appear that if the Ukrainians didn't open fire - which they didn't, they just drove past - then it's a legitimate tactic.
'Then got ambushed by the Ukrainians ahead of them'
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He seems the type who can be convinced by duty rather than desire. His biggest asset is he does not seem at all tied to any of the various 50-100 strong MP groupings in the Tory party who detest each other. So he can be a blank piece of paper that invites senior MPs across the party into cabinet and acts as a referee giving each camp a little of what they want.
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
IANAL, but i seem to recall - from other similar cases - that if something is copyright, then it can be used as long as the copyright fee is paid. So they can complain, but have nothing legal to back them up, just goodwill.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
This is essentially my prediction, but the PCP have to conclude by strong majority that neither Boris, Sunak or Braverman are viable.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
Boris's best chance is to become leader after an election loss - but not before. That would be absurd. Sunak and Braverman would be too controversial to be unopposed and Sunak, in any case, has already tried and lost.
Wallace's evident lack of leadership ambition would, in this instance, be a positive attribute. He would be a short-term leader which the other plausible candidates, such as Penny Mordaunt or Kemi Badenoch, could live with. I think the public would quite like Wallace - an old-style soldier/public servant stepping up to the crease.
Make sure you follow the T&Cs. I worked for them a while back and the amount of people who misread the T&Cs for a different switching offer (such as doing a partial switch or thinking an internal account upgrade qualified) led to a lot of problems.
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
Britain pretty much the weakest, worst funded local government in the OECD.
Again, a sane government would be looking at this as a growth measure. But Tories are instinctively against decentralisation.
So are Labour, although there are signs of an important shift there.
Too many governments of all stripes have wanted central control. Personally would prefer much more local power. Let local councils raise and keep the council tax and business rates, and let them set the levels too. Get genuine competition between areas.
Won't happen though.
As you say, won’t happen. Single market re-entry? Won’t happen. Planning reform? Won’t happen. Britain is the won’t happen nation.
One day, possibly in around 2040, Britain will become dimly aware that it’s economy has been overtaken by Romania, because of things that wouldn’t happen.
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.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
Ah. Now you are getting into the realms of Propertarianism - a rather extreme branch of Libertarianism which I have great difficulty with - indeed outright hostility to. I agree with you that there must be limits on what restrictions can be placed on legally enforceable objections. What we are arguing about here is the practical and moral extent of those limits. Simply because those objections could in extremis be used to ban people on the basis of colour or creed does not mean there should be no limits at all - which is what you are attempting to argue with your example.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He doesn't want the job, it's very clear.
Now Braverman - there's someone who clearly believes they'll be PM one day.
The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes The blossom embraces the bee. But soon, says a whisper; "Arise, arise,
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.
And if those voters determined they don't want any black people in their village? Should that be voted for too?
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
Externalities, Bart, externalities.
We live in a democracy and the local residents can make their feelings known that they don't want that via the medium of the council and the application of the planning laws; laws that were created by a democratically-elected government.
As for black people, the people voted in a government which made it illegal to discriminate against black people.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He'd be helped by surrounding himself with the best the Conservative Parliamentary Party has to offer in governing. There's not much of that in the current Cabinet. New broom, pretty much.
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.
That's quite poignant. Circle of Life etc. Reminds me of that Halifax ad.
Yes, what’s required is for councils to be able to benefit financially - through increased CT revenues - to allow more building in their areas. Too much local authority budget comes from central government, and not enough from local taxes.
That's a different argument - the general point is that building x,000 houses requires additional infrastructure which have significant upfront costs. That money can't come from day to day council budgets so it needs to come from somewhere which is where the S106 comes into place...
Quite. The existing locals don't like their taps running dry, or shite backing up, or rivers looking like Brown Windsor soup, or traffic jams, or schools and surgeries overcrowded.
BTW, doesn't that sound familiar? Tories of all people are going on and on and on about the ills of immigration. Well, they seem very relaxed about doing it on a local scale sans mitigation if they abolish planning.
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.
Does that mean civilians can't indulge in a bit of sabotage without putting a uniform on first?
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
On war crimes, has anyone on the winning side (Of any war ever) been succesfully prosecuted for a war crime ?
At least one British soldier was prosecuted for murdering a prisoner in Afghanistan, IIRC.
Abu Ghraib springs to mind as well.
I'm not convinced we were on the winning side there.
Well, we actually lost in Afghanistan!
Depends on your definition of goal. The main goal to remove Bin Laden was achieved. Removing the Taliban was a pointless secondary goal
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He seems the type who can be convinced by duty rather than desire. His biggest asset is he does not seem at all tied to any of the various 50-100 strong MP groupings in the Tory party who detest each other. So he can be a blank piece of paper that invites senior MPs across the party into cabinet and acts as a referee giving each camp a little of what they want.
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.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
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.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Doesn’t surprise me. He’s a “Tory Moderniser” in effect. A Cameroon, essentially.
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
IANAL, but i seem to recall - from other similar cases - that if something is copyright, then it can be used as long as the copyright fee is paid. So they can complain, but have nothing legal to back them up, just goodwill.
I'm familiar with graphics/photos (c) and it's often a condition that you don't use them for anything dodgy or inappropriate, such as porn etc. And to specify exact usage in what. I suyspect the M Folk would have stopped anything like the party conference if it was as described. Like the Tory Cabinet meeting in a Scottish village hall which described itself as a women's institute meeting or similar when booking the hall.
Make sure you follow the T&Cs. I worked for them a while back and the amount of people who misread the T&Cs for a different switching offer (such as doing a partial switch or thinking an internal account upgrade qualified) led to a lot of problems.
I've had an account with them before, which excludes me from the 12 month interest offer. Nothing about the £200 bonus. Soon as it's in hopefully another bank will be offering more merry go round money.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He seems the type who can be convinced by duty rather than desire. His biggest asset is he does not seem at all tied to any of the various 50-100 strong MP groupings in the Tory party who detest each other. So he can be a blank piece of paper that invites senior MPs across the party into cabinet and acts as a referee giving each camp a little of what they want.
Exactly. The key thing is that he won't provoke a challenge from another contender and can be "elected" without a contest as was Michael Howard. He would, no doubt, form a cabinet of "all the talents" in order to keep everyone on board. TBH, it's a blindingly obvious solution to the Truss problem.
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
IANAL, but i seem to recall - from other similar cases - that if something is copyright, then it can be used as long as the copyright fee is paid. So they can complain, but have nothing legal to back them up, just goodwill.
I'm familiar with graphics/photos (c) and it's often a condition that you don't use them for anything dodgy or inappropriate, such as porn etc. And to specify exact usage in what. I suyspect the M Folk would have stopped anything like the party conference if it was as described. Like the Tory Cabinet meeting in a Scottish village hall which described itself as a women's institute meeting or similar when booking the hall.
Also, just thinking about it, would this in legal terms be a public performance or the soundtrack to an advertisement?
If the latter case, they might be entitled to repeat fees...
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He seems the type who can be convinced by duty rather than desire. His biggest asset is he does not seem at all tied to any of the various 50-100 strong MP groupings in the Tory party who detest each other. So he can be a blank piece of paper that invites senior MPs across the party into cabinet and acts as a referee giving each camp a little of what they want.
That sounds a thoroughly depressing task....
Indeed and why it requires someone motivated by duty rather than desire.
By the way, the Telegraph online have chosen a rotating set of photos of Truss picked from her speech that make her look... well I am not sure of the PC term for it... mentally deficient?
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.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Doesn’t surprise me. He’s a “Tory Moderniser” in effect. A Cameroon, essentially.
Other than party affiliation, is there any real ideological difference between a Blairite, a Cameroon and an Orange Booker?
Just thinking where I'd pitch the GE seat spread for Labour if I was offering the market (which I'm most certainly not): 305/310?
There's a man hoping his Lay of Lab Maj will be turned around.
Ha. No, I've eaten it.
Where would you offer it right now then?
Ooh - hmm
Evens is my instinctive guess.
Labour is a long way ahead now, and I'd say Evens. But if forced I'd be a backer not a layer of Even money. So it's got to be slightly shorter. And we're a long way off a GE; and Labour has plenty of seats to make up.
So I think 5-6.
If forced I'd buy at the current 40% or so, I'm in other markets which I think (HOPE !) I can guess better for now.
Sounds not unreasonable. But I meant something slightly different. Imagine you are right now offering a spread bet on Labour seats at the GE. Eg in my quick stab theoretical there. 305/310. So my "clients" could buy @ 310 or sell @ 305. You'd pitch that higher, would you? ie you'd buy @ 310?
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
It feels to me that Wallace would be very much an IDS figure, and not just because of his military background. Clearly a decent man, reasonably competent junior minister, OK-ish cabinet minister, but would be out of his depth as leader.
The fact that he is talked about when he hasn't even given an inkling of his own views on policy or strategy to deal with the issues the country faces (at least not publicly enough that I've noticed) shows how bare the Tory cupboard is.
As predicted on this board, M People are objecting to their music being used at conference.
So Tories are not allowed to like M People?
They can like them but they shouldn't use their music without permission, or M-People might object to being associated, or worse.
Is this true though? If your music is for sale, do you keep the rights to say who can buy and use it?
Buying a CD or downloading music does not give you a licence from the copyright holder to broadcast it or even play it publicly. If you want to include recorded music in a radio or TV broadcast, online, or if you want to play it in public, permission is needed from each and every recording rightsholder whose recordings you use. The vast majority of record companies have signed up with PPL (broadcast) and PRS for Music (public venues) in the UK (https://www.ppluk.com/what-we-do/ and https://www.prsformusic.com/) who deal with licencing on their behalf - so pubs etc. can get a blanket licence to play the music of all copyright holders signed up with. You'll often see a PRS sticker by the door of a pub. The Tories could/should and probably did get the right licences but they can't stop M-People voicing an objection at being associated with the Conservative Party.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He seems the type who can be convinced by duty rather than desire. His biggest asset is he does not seem at all tied to any of the various 50-100 strong MP groupings in the Tory party who detest each other. So he can be a blank piece of paper that invites senior MPs across the party into cabinet and acts as a referee giving each camp a little of what they want.
Exactly. The key thing is that he won't provoke a challenge from another contender and can be "elected" without a contest as was Michael Howard. He would, no doubt, form a cabinet of "all the talents" in order to keep everyone on board. TBH, it's a blindingly obvious solution to the Truss problem.
Why not? Why wouldn't Suella make a bid for glory? Name in the history books and 115,000 pa for life.
Just dipping in but I think we will see a repeat of 2001-3 compressed into the next 12 months.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Thing is, Wallace has been very lucky. His reputation is undoubtedly enhanced, but is it really deserved?
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
He seems the type who can be convinced by duty rather than desire. His biggest asset is he does not seem at all tied to any of the various 50-100 strong MP groupings in the Tory party who detest each other. So he can be a blank piece of paper that invites senior MPs across the party into cabinet and acts as a referee giving each camp a little of what they want.
That sounds a thoroughly depressing task....
Indeed and why it requires someone motivated by duty rather than desire.
Were I Mr Wallace I would be keeping my head down and just ensuring I remained the Defence Minister...
This is actually mind-boggling. Neither of these images is fake. Liz Truss was literally wearing today what the tyrannical populist leader played by Emma Thompson in *Years and Years* wore, right down to the shoulder-detail, belt and collar. Just a different shade. How? Why? https://twitter.com/Tweet_Dec/status/1577649652597334017
She's probably never watched it, I am going to go with coincidence.
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.
Janan Ganesh leftwing?
Only on PB.
I know!
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
Janan was at university at the same time as me and was a Tory Association member for a time
Doesn’t surprise me. He’s a “Tory Moderniser” in effect. A Cameroon, essentially.
Other than party affiliation, is there any real ideological difference between a Blairite, a Cameroon and an Orange Booker?
Personally, Blairism is still statism, albeit a reformed statism.
Cameroons and Orange Bookers are more skeptical of large scale public services.
I missed the Truss speech as I was travelling. Would one of PB's many fair-minded and balanced posters mind giving me a brief assessment of how it went and to what extent it may or may not have got her out of the doo-doo?
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Comments
Bond yields had been coming down, since the BoE’s special monetary operation.
That seems to have reversed today.
We’re not out of the woods, yet.
Should engage Rolling Stones lawyers.
🤣
The trials after the war - including the famous war crimes trials - took the view that it was legit if you hauled down flags etc before opening fire.
Whether this happened here or not I don't know, which is why I used the word 'potentially.'
Also it's an object lesson about how the free marketeers don't give a shit about anyone else.
I understand that if caught they don't get treated as a prisoner of war, but I didn't think they'd also be technically a war criminal.
All a grey area really.
We're being razzled by a moon rabbit ... moon rabbit moon rabbit
They are the party of rentierism, barriers to trade, low investment, and picking the pockets of the economically productive in order to support their economically idle client base.
This is why Truss-ism can’t work.
If someone wants to build a block of flats on their own land then that is their own land, not the villagers land.
Again, a sane government would be looking at this as a growth measure. But Tories are instinctively against decentralisation.
So are Labour, although there are signs of an important shift there.
As older PBers will recall in 2001 the Conservatives made an obvious dud their leader - IDS - after he won the members' vote, having scraped into the last 2 with the support of hard right factionalists in the parliamentary party. But leaving the majority of MPs aghast. This is exactly what has happened here.
In due course the MPs understandably booted him out and agreed on a successor - Michael Howard -who was unanimously elected with the members excluded. That process took two years.
The obvious person to fulfil the Howard role is Ben Wallace. Everyone respects him. I suspect this will play out in about 12 months.
Outcome will be a less devastating defeat than if Truss is kept in place. Her position is irrecoverable but she can at least absorb the next 12 months of bad news, leaving Wallace a further 12 months to attempt some kind of recovery.
Apols if this forecast has already been posted.
Where would you offer it right now then?
Brexit
Want growth?
Join the single market...
Is he actually competent, or is it all just projection?
It’s not clear to me that he has the skills, or indeed the desire, to run the country.
Extended stretches of poor polling may change their mind; or a disaster in May locals. Though as some have pointed out, the Tories performed so badly in locals four years ago that May could flatter to deceive.
Evens is my instinctive guess.
Labour is a long way ahead now, and I'd say Evens. But if forced I'd be a backer not a layer of Even money. So it's got to be slightly shorter. And we're a long way off a GE; and Labour has plenty of seats to make up.
So I think 5-6.
If forced I'd buy at the current 40% or so, I'm in other markets which I think (HOPE !) I can guess better for now.
Won't happen though.
Now Braverman - there's someone who clearly believes they'll be PM one day.
Especially today, with the finding of a big collection of gold teeth extracted from Ukrainians in a torture facility.
https://www.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/development-plans/
(I find it astounding that it's not compulsory anywhere in the UK.)
Remember a year or two back one of us came across this amazing map shpwing public views of the planning system in the UK? There was approval north of the border - disapproval south of it. Didn't seem to be a polling error or methodological difference. Something else was different, but we couldn't pin it down.
Wallace's evident lack of leadership ambition would, in this instance, be a positive attribute. He would be a short-term leader which the other plausible candidates, such as Penny Mordaunt or Kemi Badenoch, could live with. I think the public would quite like Wallace - an old-style soldier/public servant stepping up to the crease.
Single market re-entry? Won’t happen.
Planning reform? Won’t happen.
Britain is the won’t happen nation.
One day, possibly in around 2040, Britain will become dimly aware that it’s economy has been overtaken by Romania, because of things that wouldn’t happen.
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper;
"Arise, arise,
We live in a democracy and the local residents can make their feelings known that they don't want that via the medium of the council and the application of the planning laws; laws that were created by a democratically-elected government.
As for black people, the people voted in a government which made it illegal to discriminate against black people.
You are having a moment here.
BTW, doesn't that sound familiar? Tories of all people are going on and on and on about the ills of immigration. Well, they seem very relaxed about doing it on a local scale sans mitigation if they abolish planning.
He’s a “Tory Moderniser” in effect.
A Cameroon, essentially.
If the latter case, they might be entitled to repeat fees...
Anyone who went to university and witnessed the sort of people who were members of the “Objectivist Society” knows this.
If someone mentions Ayn Rand in favourable terms, reach for your revolver.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk
Edit: actually, some of them make her look like Benny Hill.
The fact that he is talked about when he hasn't even given an inkling of his own views on policy or strategy to deal with the issues the country faces (at least not publicly enough that I've noticed) shows how bare the Tory cupboard is.
Cameroons and Orange Bookers are more skeptical of large scale public services.
I did hear the news, but that the Beeb, and you know what they're like.
Thanks
Albeit as a replacement for Boris of course.