What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
I wouldn't mind so much (ok, that's a lie), except when they do these things there's no replacement policy, or its a ridiculous policy.
I don't even think it saves them as many seats as they think it does - people have moaned about housebuilding targets for a long time, MPs in those areas have still gotten returned over and over. Local MPs, who don't have any real influence over such things (unless they can persuade the Secretary of State to call in), have always taken the easy route of siding with any local objectors. Unlike local councils it causes them no issues.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
Makes sense.
Though the SNP case for a second referendum may be undermined if they go into the election that delivers that hung parliament treating it as a de facto referendum and not making the 50% target they would effectively need to demonstrate majority support for independence. Would be hard to then stand up and say "we won't support your minority Lab government without a commitment to indyref2".
Equally though, if they did make that target would strengthen the case to say no support to Labour without an indyref2 commitment as a bare minimum.
OTOH we are talking about a parliament which regards bums on green benches as the be all and end all. Though consistency has never been the unionistd strong point.
Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.
Key quote: The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles. https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.
The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.
People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.
It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
Wait, so you're telling me the vast cost of military procurement is not all above board and necessary?!
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
Makes sense.
Though the SNP case for a second referendum may be undermined if they go into the election that delivers that hung parliament treating it as a de facto referendum and not making the 50% target they would effectively need to demonstrate majority support for independence. Would be hard to then stand up and say "we won't support your minority Lab government without a commitment to indyref2".
Equally though, if they did make that target would strengthen the case to say no support to Labour without an indyref2 commitment as a bare minimum.
OTOH we are talking about a parliament which regards bums on green benches as the be all and end all. Though consistency has never been the unionistd strong point.
I've always wondered for what reason Fabricant and Rees-Mogg got elected.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
Makes sense.
Though the SNP case for a second referendum may be undermined if they go into the election that delivers that hung parliament treating it as a de facto referendum and not making the 50% target they would effectively need to demonstrate majority support for independence. Would be hard to then stand up and say "we won't support your minority Lab government without a commitment to indyref2".
Equally though, if they did make that target would strengthen the case to say no support to Labour without an indyref2 commitment as a bare minimum.
OTOH we are talking about a parliament which regards bums on green benches as the be all and end all. Though consistency has never been the unionistd strong point.
Well, to be fair, I expect it doesn't really matter what the SNP achieved in that context - both Labour and the Tories would just ignore it anyway.
But I suspect it would change the calculation within the SNP regarding Labour support.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
It's notable with football penalties that commentators often talk about 'great' penalties which are nothing of the sort, it's simply that the goalkeeper was not fortunate enough to guess the right way. There;s loads of lightly hit, mid right or left at east saving height penalties out there.
To my mind a great taken penalty is one where even if they guess correctly its still scored, because power, direction etc were too good.
Japan trying the interesting new penalty technique of gently tapping the ball with the side of the foot and "rolling it" towards the goalkeeper. Devious
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Improve extra time by playing the penalties first, so the team losing it knows they have to throw the kitchen sink in the subsequent ET because if it ends in a draw they know they lose.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
Improve extra time by playing the penalties first, so the team losing it knows they have to throw the kitchen sink in the subsequent ET because if it ends in a draw they know they lose.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Yes, but those are the bits left over when major elements were ripped out. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that one of Leon's Aztec heart sacrifice victims had a nice manicure so it's OK.
Some of my friends are discussing why Harrison Ford is still playing Indiana Jones but honestly, having an 80-year-old professor not retire is like the most accurate part of the franchise https://twitter.com/vintagehistoria/status/1598726254043095040
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
You say I'm incorrect, but I don't think you're actually contradicting me, with the possible exception that I think that if the SNP were committed (not necessarily publicly) to opposing a Starmer King's Speech then the government could request a new election based on there being no possible government.
The convention is that if you can't pass a King's Speech after an election, the opposition then get to have a go in preference to a new election. Only if they fail do you have a new election.
I think it unlikely Charles would depart from that.
Right. But "having a go" AIUI only extends to negotiations, not to actually taking office if it's known a King's Speech will fail.
No, it does extend to taking office, as with Wilson in 1974. Negotiations are an extra and don't count.
The only way it would be different is if the largest opposition party has fewer MPs than the government, as in 1924 when Baldwin decided to meet Parliament even though Asquith had already announced he would vote the Unionists out and put Labour in.
I'm not old enough to remember 1974, but I see from Hansard that the Queen's Speech debate in March 1974 was essentially uncontested, so the same principles don't apply.
Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.
Key quote: The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles. https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.
The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.
People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.
It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
The west is waking up to the problem, slowly.
The US is looking at how to revamp its procurement for volume munitions (the ground launched small diameter bomb program is an example).
Ought to be relatively easy to produce a cheaper mass produced modern version.
IIRC BAe is still offering Marksman - a turret that does pretty much Gepard and can be fitted to nearly any old tank. Never made many sales versus Germany dumping lists of Gerard’s on the market.
I hope Liz Truss is not a Cricket fan A record 506-4 on day one, an aggregate 921 runs scored at a faster rate than any Test in history. Bowlers going through more plans than Liz Truss, only with success. Field placements that never settled - five, six, or even seven catchers designed to cajole a batter into a mistake.
Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.
Key quote: The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles. https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.
The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.
People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.
It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
The west is waking up to the problem, slowly.
The US is looking at how to revamp its procurement for volume munitions (the ground launched small diameter bomb program is an example).
Ought to be relatively easy to produce a cheaper mass produced modern version.
IIRC BAe is still offering Marksman - a turret that does pretty much Gepard and can be fitted to nearly any old tank. Never made many sales versus Germany dumping lists of Gerard’s on the market.
Not that many knocking around now, though, and they have high maintenance costs. You could build the same capacity with current tech much more cheaply (I bet the BAe offering isn't cheap ?).
Effective, though. The first footage of a German-supplied Flakpanzer Gepard SPAAG in use with Ukrainian forces appeared today, seen shooting down an incoming Russian cruise missile using its two 35mm autocannons. https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1599810159236112406
Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.
Key quote: The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles. https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.
The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.
People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.
It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
Wait, so you're telling me the vast cost of military procurement is not all above board and necessary?!
It’s entirely above board and necessary.
It’s about supporting a pyramid of people who you like. And like you in return. The actual weapons or moon rockets are an incidental (and often accidental) product.
This is why people phoned up a certain NASA official, repeatedly, to order her to get “Her boy Elon, back in his lane”. Delivering more capability for less money was exactly what wasn’t wanted.
In this country, a decision to tell the makers of the Stingray torpedo to fuck off when they wanted hundreds of millions to test whether it would work with the new sub hunter planes -no actual working torpedos, just trials - led to a serious attempt to unseat the Defence minister of the day.
Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.
Key quote: The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles. https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.
The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.
People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.
It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
The west is waking up to the problem, slowly.
The US is looking at how to revamp its procurement for volume munitions (the ground launched small diameter bomb program is an example).
Ought to be relatively easy to produce a cheaper mass produced modern version.
IIRC BAe is still offering Marksman - a turret that does pretty much Gepard and can be fitted to nearly any old tank. Never made many sales versus Germany dumping lists of Gerard’s on the market.
Fascinating short thread on Ukraine's drone attacks and the impact on future militaries. Ukraine has managed in months to knock together drones with a 1,000km range that could attack Russian air force bases.
Key quote: The emergence of DIY Assault Drone/Cruise missile production by Syrian warlords, & now AFU, marks a “Revolution in Military Affairs” that rivals the 1967 sinking of the Israeli Destroyer INS Eilat by Egyptian Styx Cruise missiles. https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1599806940678303744
Worth noting that Ukraine's maritime drones couldn't stop today's launch of Kalibr cruise missiles by the Russian Black Sea fleet. And I think one reason Ukraine's long-range weapons have been so much more effective than Russia's is that they have much better target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities.
Not much point having long-range precision weaponry if you don't know where to target it - that seems to be one of the key Russian failings.
A weapon can only do so much. Which is why you need different types.
The revolution with drones/cheap cruise missiles is the breaking of the rules of military procurement - that it is a solemn, ultra expensive way of procuring an ever smaller number of weapons.
People having been talking about how you could knock together a V1 look alike for a few thousand quid a pop, for years. Now it is happening.
It’s something like SpaceX - by ignoring the rules about feeding the politicians, their friends and the rest of the pyramid of the military-industrial base, they’ve got space launch down to a *cost* of $20 million or so for 16 tons to LEO. It’s not magic, just throw away what you don’t need….
The west is waking up to the problem, slowly.
The US is looking at how to revamp its procurement for volume munitions (the ground launched small diameter bomb program is an example).
Ought to be relatively easy to produce a cheaper mass produced modern version.
IIRC BAe is still offering Marksman - a turret that does pretty much Gepard and can be fitted to nearly any old tank. Never made many sales versus Germany dumping lists of Gerard’s on the market.
Improve extra time by playing the penalties first, so the team losing it knows they have to throw the kitchen sink in the subsequent ET because if it ends in a draw they know they lose.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
Personally I'd start with the penalties before they even have regular time. It would encourage people to turn up on time for the game.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
The fun scenario is if
1. Lab and Con both say they will vote against any King's Speech by the leader of the other party, 2. both say no new indyref, 3. the SNP say they will vote against any King's Speech that doesn't promise an indyref, 4. the SNP + Greens win less than 50% of voteshare in Scotland, maybe even a lower proportion than the 46% they got in 2019.
It won't get to this, because "politics is the art of the possible", but if it did then the king wouldn't call for Starmer. (Or if he did, he'd only call on him to try to form a new government, and Starmer would have to go back and say he couldn't. I don't think he'd appoint him as leader of a minority government.) The king would call a new election. The SNP would then keep their fingers crossed for a minimal swing between Lab and Con.
By that time there would surely be a build-up of feeling in England in all political parties and all classes that seriously best for everyone south of the border would be if Scotland f***ed off. Aka "Hit the road, Jock".
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Improve extra time by playing the penalties first, so the team losing it knows they have to throw the kitchen sink in the subsequent ET because if it ends in a draw they know they lose.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
I’d rather remove a player each side every five minutes in extra time. I hate penalties. The game wouldn’t last long with 5 vs 5 and golden goal.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
You say I'm incorrect, but I don't think you're actually contradicting me, with the possible exception that I think that if the SNP were committed (not necessarily publicly) to opposing a Starmer King's Speech then the government could request a new election based on there being no possible government.
The convention is that if you can't pass a King's Speech after an election, the opposition then get to have a go in preference to a new election. Only if they fail do you have a new election.
I think it unlikely Charles would depart from that.
Right. But "having a go" AIUI only extends to negotiations, not to actually taking office if it's known a King's Speech will fail.
No, it does extend to taking office, as with Wilson in 1974. Negotiations are an extra and don't count.
The only way it would be different is if the largest opposition party has fewer MPs than the government, as in 1924 when Baldwin decided to meet Parliament even though Asquith had
already announced he would vote the Unionists out and put Labour in.
I'm not old enough to remember 1974, but I see from Hansard that the Queen's Speech debate in March 1974 was essentially uncontested, so the same principles don't apply.
This photograph used by @netflix and Harry and Meghan to suggest intrusion by the press is a complete travesty. It was taken from a accredited pool at Archbishop Tutu’s residence in Cape Town. Only 3 people were in the accredited position. H & M agreed the position. I was there. https://twitter.com/theroyaleditor/status/1599799660335472641
There's another really funny Tweet below that one - footage of the evil hordes of press shown in the trailer of Harry and Megan's documentary is actually from a court appearance by Katie Price in Crawley.
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
But back on the farm -
Will the Vow 2.0 attract some soft Nats to Labour do we think?
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Yes, but those are the bits left over when major elements were ripped out. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that one of Leon's Aztec heart sacrifice victims had a nice manicure so it's OK.
I'm surprised the 'beauty test' doesn't exist already - who is getting planning permission currently for f**k ugly buildings, and why?
This photograph used by @netflix and Harry and Meghan to suggest intrusion by the press is a complete travesty. It was taken from a accredited pool at Archbishop Tutu’s residence in Cape Town. Only 3 people were in the accredited position. H & M agreed the position. I was there. https://twitter.com/theroyaleditor/status/1599799660335472641
There's another really funny Tweet below that one - footage of the evil hordes of press shown in the trailer of Harry and Megan's documentary is actually from a court appearance by Katie Price in Crawley.
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Yes, but those are the bits left over when major elements were ripped out. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that one of Leon's Aztec heart sacrifice victims had a nice manicure so it's OK.
I'm surprised the 'beauty test' doesn't exist already - who is getting planning permission currently for f**k ugly buildings, and why?
That too. But who says it's beautiful? It might be a Brutalist who decides. Or a councillor entranced by the elegance of the handwriting on a cheque book. Or outsource it to CPRE?
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
But back on the farm -
Will the Vow 2.0 attract some soft Nats to Labour do we think?
Not a lot. It's already more like Vow 4.0 or 5.0 as we are reminded by Mr Brown's presence. Or 6 or 7 if you include 1978 (which didn't have the onerous electoral requirements for the referendum till the wrecking amendment by a Labour MP), the Constitutional Commission, and so on.
It's however possible that they are targeting the pro-indy element within the *SLAB* vote, which is arguably a different matter.
Edit: without frightening the soft Unionist vote that has shifted to, and seemingly returned from, the ScoTories. Because devolution is more popular than indy or direct rule.
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Yes, but those are the bits left over when major elements were ripped out. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that one of Leon's Aztec heart sacrifice victims had a nice manicure so it's OK.
I'm surprised the 'beauty test' doesn't exist already - who is getting planning permission currently for f**k ugly buildings, and why?
I think the theory was that the beauty test was to be set in advance, and that developments passing the test would have a presumption to being passed.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
There is hardly any of it, and it costs squillions to survey for, and neutralise, contaminants.
What a load of rubbish. Wonderful way to send a signal to a large majority that you really don’t give a shit about house building.
There’s no point in dragging out a govt where loony backbenchers have such a huge sway. Looking forward to a large number of these MPs losing their seat
If they do it won't be because of that. The vast majority of Tory voters in the home counties especially oppose new building outside brownbelt areas.
At the Epping Christmas Trees Festival at the weekend the Epping Society even had a 'Protect our Greenbelt' tree.
You only have to look at Chesham and Amersham and the Tory councillors who have lost their seats to LDs and Independents over housebuilding proposals in local plans to see that.
Though longer term housebuilding targets which were in place and local plans are necessary to get new housing and property owners and potential Tory voters, especially in the expensive London and South East and home counties region, in the short term voters who live there and own property won't thank you for it
OK, the government have to dance to the tune of their core vote, who don't understand why people think there is a housing crisis because they and all their friends own their own homes.
But can't the Conservatives find a less damaging way to do that? Turn Channel 4 into 24 hour rolling Countdown or something. (To be clear, proper Countdown, not that horrible Jimmy Carr version. Poor Rachel and Suzie must be mortified.)
Some sensible proposals in the Gove reforms though.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
Yes, but those are the bits left over when major elements were ripped out. You're basically doing the equivalent of saying that one of Leon's Aztec heart sacrifice victims had a nice manicure so it's OK.
I'm surprised the 'beauty test' doesn't exist already - who is getting planning permission currently for f**k ugly buildings, and why?
That too. But who says it's beautiful? It might be a Brutalist who decides. Or a councillor entranced by the elegance of the handwriting on a cheque book. Or outsource it to CPRE?
Decisions will be based on the willingness of the decision maker to move there. Afaicr one of the most prominent brutalist architects lived in a timber-framed Tudor manor house.
This photograph used by @netflix and Harry and Meghan to suggest intrusion by the press is a complete travesty. It was taken from a accredited pool at Archbishop Tutu’s residence in Cape Town. Only 3 people were in the accredited position. H & M agreed the position. I was there. https://twitter.com/theroyaleditor/status/1599799660335472641
There's another really funny Tweet below that one - footage of the evil hordes of press shown in the trailer of Harry and Megan's documentary is actually from a court appearance by Katie Price in Crawley.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
But back on the farm -
Will the Vow 2.0 attract some soft Nats to Labour do we think?
Not a lot. It's already more like Vow 4.0 or 5.0 as we are reminded by Mr Brown's presence. Or 6 or 7 if you include 1978 (which didn't have the onerous electoral requirements for the referendum till the wrecking amendment by a Labour MP), the Constitutional Commission, and so on.
It's however possible that they are targeting the pro-indy element within the *SLAB* vote, which is arguably a different matter.
Edit: without frightening the soft Unionist vote that has shifted to, and seemingly returned from, the ScoTories.
It's interesting to me to put myself into the shoes of a Scot who is leftish, and sort of quite fancies independence but doesn't have it as top priority.
Improve extra time by playing the penalties first, so the team losing it knows they have to throw the kitchen sink in the subsequent ET because if it ends in a draw they know they lose.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
That's so nonsensical they might adopt it.
Why is it nonsensical? It’s a great idea and should have been introduced long ago
Improve extra time by playing the penalties first, so the team losing it knows they have to throw the kitchen sink in the subsequent ET because if it ends in a draw they know they lose.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
I’d rather remove a player each side every five minutes in extra time. I hate penalties. The game wouldn’t last long with 5 vs 5 and golden goal.
That would be even better. The current system is rubbish. Deciding a crucial match on a very narrow element of the game.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
There is hardly any of it, and it costs squillions to survey for, and neutralise, contaminants.
According to the Government's own brownfield site registers there are over 20,000 such sites in England with the capacity for over 1 million new houses. So 'hardly any of it' is rather wide of the mark.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
You do talk some bollocks.
What exactly do you think an undeveloped brownfield site comprises, if nobody has bothered to do anything with it yet.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
You do talk some bollocks.
What exactly do you think an undeveloped brownfield site comprises, if nobody has bothered to do anything with it yet.
The main reason no one bothers to do anything with it is because they have to pay to clear it and until only a few years ago that work was subject to VAT - unlike greenfield development. It is cheaper and easier for developers to develop greenfield sites and they sit on land with planning permission to make sure more is released by the local authorities. Currently enough for 600,000 new homes, up from 400,000 only 12 years ago.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
You do talk some bollocks.
The key was the reference to 'magic money tree'. It doesn't necessarily mean brownfield land is not part of a solution, but people act like it alone will solve everything, because that avoids anything more difficult. But people object strenuously to brownfield development too of course. There's a lot of potential capacity, but its unrealistic to think they can get it all used, and once they have used up the easier sites (as it is true developers do take the piss in going after green fields instead) what about years to come.
I prefer comparing it to using bankers bonuses as a catch all solution.
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
But back on the farm -
Will the Vow 2.0 attract some soft Nats to Labour do we think?
Not a lot. It's already more like Vow 4.0 or 5.0 as we are reminded by Mr Brown's presence. Or 6 or 7 if you include 1978 (which didn't have the onerous electoral requirements for the referendum till the wrecking amendment by a Labour MP), the Constitutional Commission, and so on.
It's however possible that they are targeting the pro-indy element within the *SLAB* vote, which is arguably a different matter.
Edit: without frightening the soft Unionist vote that has shifted to, and seemingly returned from, the ScoTories.
It's interesting to me to put myself into the shoes of a Scot who is leftish, and sort of quite fancies independence but doesn't have it as top priority.
Do I vote Lab or SNP? Not sure.
Depends on so many other things. Do you (in your hypothetical character) actually like and approve of the SNP? There seem to be plenty of Scots nationalists who don't.
If you do, then I would have thought the SNP is an obvious choice. It is an anti-Tory vote which increases the chances of them being kicked out but also gives you the chance that they might be able to wangle a referendum out of any post-election uncertainty. Not sure I see many downsides in those circumstances. Again, assuming you generally approve of the SNP record.
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
You do talk some bollocks.
The key was the reference to 'magic money tree'. It doesn't necessarily mean brownfield land is not part of a solution, but people act like it alone will solve everything, because that avoids anything more difficult. But people object strenuously to brownfield development too of course. There's a lot of potential capacity, but its unrealistic to think they can get it all used, and once they have used up the easier sites (as it is true developers do take the piss in going after green fields instead) what about years to come.
I prefer comparing it to using bankers bonuses as a catch all solution.
No, it won't solve all the problems. But the current 1 million plus homes that could be built on it, plus the 600,000 plots with planning permission that are already waiting to be developed would go a long way to helping solve the problems.
As with many aspects of our unwritten constitution, and the Americans found out with their written one, good governance relies on those in power acting in good faith.
An SNP First Minister of Scotland would veto everything, just because.
Whether people think its a fair and reasonable choice to strike in the circumstances I do wish they wouldn't say they had no choice.
They had a new pay offer, but there were loads of strings attached (some unreasonable IMO). Lots of pro-rail people are saying that non-pay related strings in a pay offer are unreasonable.
And I generally agree.
Except for the fact the unions don't mind 'strings' in pay deals when they're to their advantage. Which is why we ended up with secondman operation for twenty years longer than it should have lasted...
Brownfield land is rich old people's magic money tree. Put the young people on top of a toxic dump or somewhere, as long as it's far from anywhere anyone lives.
You do talk some bollocks.
The key was the reference to 'magic money tree'. It doesn't necessarily mean brownfield land is not part of a solution, but people act like it alone will solve everything, because that avoids anything more difficult. But people object strenuously to brownfield development too of course. There's a lot of potential capacity, but its unrealistic to think they can get it all used, and once they have used up the easier sites (as it is true developers do take the piss in going after green fields instead) what about years to come.
I prefer comparing it to using bankers bonuses as a catch all solution.
No, it won't solve all the problems. But the current 1 million plus homes that could be built on it, plus the 600,000 plots with planning permission that are already waiting to be developed would go a long way to helping solve the problems.
1 million plus is a cpre figure. What is the betting it is a purely theoretical, unachievable maximum?
Would Sunak offer the referendum to get SNP support? He obviously doesn't give a fuck about Scotland and doesn't even bother pretending like Johnson and May.
Would he be allowed to? If HYUFD is any guide, he wouldn't survive till the next Scotland Act was passed, never mind referendum.
What happens if Sunak and Starmer both tell the SNP to do one but neither can muster a majority? Another election? That outcome is probably be better for Labour than the tories as the country's crisis fatigue will be acute at that point.
If Starmer leads the largest party he could probably vote the Tories out unless the SNP voted for the Tories. At that point the SNP would more or less have to back him - either actively by voting for him or passively by abstaining - or be accused of being Sunak's little helpers.
If the Tories are the largest party then I think it would have to be another election. The SNP would then have to explain what the point is of voting for them when they won't get rid of the hated Tories at the first opportunity.
Bluntly, it is hard to see a positive scenario for the SNP in the event of a hung Parliament. They almost certainly won't be getting their referendum, and they will have to either vote Labour in without one or explain why they didn't get rid of the Tories. Neither is a good option.
Their optimum result is a very small Tory majority with zero seats in Scotland. At that point you would have to say the UK government lacked legitimacy north of the border.
I think you're misunderstanding how the process works. There is never a direct vote in parliament between two possible governments. Sir Keir only gets to be PM if he can demonstrate before a King's Speech vote that he can win it - in the situation you posit that would need a formal commitment from the SNP to at least abstain on a Labour King's Speech. They could easily commit to voting against a King's Speech in any circumstances and force a new election if they don't get their second referendum.
Incorrect. If Starmer has more MPs than the Tories, he can win the vote on the Address in Reply as long as the SNP abstain. Then the government has to resign and the King would by convention send for Starmer. Starmer then gets through a Speech of his own using the same methods.
Unless of course the Tories had the sense to realise, as did Heath in 1974 and Baldwin in 1929 but not of course the phenomenally ill-advised Brown in 2010, that it's hopeless and they resign anyway.
There is no requirement for the SNP to publicly support anything.
I know Gus O'Donnell thought otherwise but he was an even bigger and more useless twat than Susan Acland-Hood.
I think Driver was pointing out that the SNP can scupper any putative minority Labour Government by simply saying they will not support it without a commitment to a referendum vote. In those circumstances no party would be able to demonstrate they have a majority via either coalition or C&S and so there would have to be a new election. The interesting point is what happens if neither of the major parties will commit to a new referendum but repeated elections continue to deliver the balance of power to the SNP.
UDI not impossible there if the SNP are also sweeping the Scottish seats.
Or war!
Catalonia tried UDI, Madrid ignored it and arrested the leaders who declared it. It remains in Spain
But back on the farm -
Will the Vow 2.0 attract some soft Nats to Labour do we think?
Not a lot. It's already more like Vow 4.0 or 5.0 as we are reminded by Mr Brown's presence. Or 6 or 7 if you include 1978 (which didn't have the onerous electoral requirements for the referendum till the wrecking amendment by a Labour MP), the Constitutional Commission, and so on.
It's however possible that they are targeting the pro-indy element within the *SLAB* vote, which is arguably a different matter.
Edit: without frightening the soft Unionist vote that has shifted to, and seemingly returned from, the ScoTories.
It's interesting to me to put myself into the shoes of a Scot who is leftish, and sort of quite fancies independence but doesn't have it as top priority.
Do I vote Lab or SNP? Not sure.
Depends on so many other things. Do you (in your hypothetical character) actually like and approve of the SNP? There seem to be plenty of Scots nationalists who don't.
If you do, then I would have thought the SNP is an obvious choice. It is an anti-Tory vote which increases the chances of them being kicked out but also gives you the chance that they might be able to wangle a referendum out of any post-election uncertainty. Not sure I see many downsides in those circumstances. Again, assuming you generally approve of the SNP record.
Well the SNP is in many ways left of Starmer Labour so yes I guess the harder position to be in is if I'm pro indy but on the right. I'm disenfranchised there. This perhaps explains malcolm's occasional lack of sweetness & light.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
The latest Redfield & Wilton has Labour ahead by 22 points (48-26) and Starmer edging into a 4-point lead over Sunak as best Prime Minister (40-36). Needless to say, the headline figures would mean a huge Labour landslide.
****SUBSAMPLE ALERT***** (you just have to)
Only 52% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 would do so now. Among men, Labour leads by 13 (42-29) but among women the lead is 30 (54-24). Conservatives lead 36-35 among 65+ voters but are well behind with all other age groups.
In London, Labour leads 54-20, in Scotland it's SNP 34%, Labour 31%, Conservative 19% and in Wales Labour 50%, Conservative 34% (which is very different to yesterday's Welsh poll which had Labour at 51% and the Conservatives on just 18%).
I haven't had time to read the thread so apologies if it's already been said but SKS is really getting the hang of this politics lark. HoL reform is the perfect topic. Makes Labour look vigorous brave and forward looking and by implication the Tories look musty and steeped in privilege. The timings good too. Just as Johnson's about to announce his very own 'Lavender List'.
Starmer is getting some worthwhile advice at the moment and it shows. He's really ramping it up at the right time.
I haven't had time to read the thread so apologies if it's already been said but SKS is really getting the hang of this politics lark. HoL reform is the perfect topic. Makes Labour look vigorous brave and forward looking and by implication the Tories look musty and steeped in privilege. The timings good too. Just as Johnson's about to announce his very own 'Lavender List'.
Starmer is getting some very worthwhile advice at the moment and it shows. He's really ramping it up at the right time.
The latest Redfield & Wilton has Labour ahead by 22 points (48-26) and Starmer edging into a 4-point lead over Sunak as best Prime Minister (40-36). Needless to say, the headline figures would mean a huge Labour landslide.
****SUBSAMPLE ALERT***** (you just have to)
Only 52% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 would do so now. Among men, Labour leads by 13 (42-29) but among women the lead is 30 (54-24). Conservatives lead 36-35 among 65+ voters but are well behind with all other age groups.
In London, Labour leads 54-20, in Scotland it's SNP 34%, Labour 31%, Conservative 19% and in Wales Labour 50%, Conservative 34% (which is very different to yesterday's Welsh poll which had Labour at 51% and the Conservatives on just 18%).
The calculation that needs to be done is what happens if 80% of all those who voted Conservative in 2019 returned, less the direct switchers to Labour.
In other words: what effect does the rallying of the DNVs and WNVs achieve?
IMHO, that's the (limited) recovery that the Conservatives would stage during a GE campaign.
I think Spurs should sign this Richarlison. He’s much better than the one they’ve got.
The volley goal he scored when he pinged it up in the air with one foot and then volleyed it into the net with the other was clearly the goal of the tournament for me.
Japan a bit unlucky there. South Korea not looking quite so good technically as the team I remember from that joint South Korean/Japan World Cup, all those many years ago now ..although it still seems fresh .. was it the first joint world cup ?
I haven't had time to read the thread so apologies if it's already been said but SKS is really getting the hang of this politics lark. HoL reform is the perfect topic. Makes Labour look vigorous brave and forward looking and by implication the Tories look musty and steeped in privilege. The timings good too. Just as Johnson's about to announce his very own 'Lavender List'.
Starmer is getting some very worthwhile advice at the moment and it shows. He's really ramping it up at the right time.
Why can't he just cut the numbers in half, get rid of the remaining hereditaries, impose attendance requirements and make vague promises about deeper reforms, that would probably be plenty as far as showing credentials.
Starmer's speech today highlights a number of different but connected issues.
Leaving the EU allowed the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster but Covid showed how easily the powers of the legislature could be transferred to the executive. Ministers gained huge powers at the expense of Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
The other side of this is the power of Whitehall and Westminster over local Government. Even Councils like Surrey, who raise 70% of their income from the Council Tax, are forced to dance to the centre's tune. Conservative (and other) Council leaders have talked of devolution in soft tones but what we really need is a much more wide-ranging transfer of authority and responsibility to elected local authorities (no need for regional Parliaments) including the power to raise taxes as they see fit. To be blunt, if people want better services and are prepared to pay for them, why should that be stopped by central Government?
Yes, let's recognise the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament in national matters and let's recognise the role of Parliament in holding the Executive to account. However, it's also time to return power to directly elected and accountable local councils (perhaps via PR to ensure all local voices are represented).
I think Spurs should sign this Richarlison. He’s much better than the one they’ve got.
The volley goal he scored when he pinged it up in the air with one foot and then volleyed it into the net with the other was clearly the goal of the tournament for me.
Yes, just ahead of Mbappe’s curler against Poland.
I haven't had time to read the thread so apologies if it's already been said but SKS is really getting the hang of this politics lark. HoL reform is the perfect topic. Makes Labour look vigorous brave and forward looking and by implication the Tories look musty and steeped in privilege. The timings good too. Just as Johnson's about to announce his very own 'Lavender List'.
Starmer is getting some worthwhile advice at the moment and it shows. He's really ramping it up at the right time.
Great Goal Brazil!
No just makes labour look pointless is its the best they can come up with. No one really gives a shit about hol reform there are bigger fish to fry like execution of advertiservment makers.... I suspect something more would get behind than hol reform
Comments
I don't even think it saves them as many seats as they think it does - people have moaned about housebuilding targets for a long time, MPs in those areas have still gotten returned over and over. Local MPs, who don't have any real influence over such things (unless they can persuade the Secretary of State to call in), have always taken the easy route of siding with any local objectors. Unlike local councils it causes them no issues.
Or war!
But I suspect it would change the calculation within the SNP regarding Labour support.
To my mind a great taken penalty is one where even if they guess correctly its still scored, because power, direction etc were too good.
'Town halls will be allowed to introduce registration schemes for short-term holiday lets and there will be a consultation on allowing them to require a change of use planning application if there is a switch from residential to short-term 'Airbnb-type' use'
'Town halls will be allowed to depart from the central determination of local housing need if there are genuine constraints on delivering it.
It means, for example, that if the centrally-determined target would involve building at a density that would lead to significant loss of rural or suburban character, the council can set a lower number.
The reforms will cut the powers of planning inspectors as part of a "rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate".
Up to now, the Planning Inspectorate has in almost all cases refused to accept that exceptional circumstances are present and indicated that the full target must be met. Their power to do this will be curbed.'
'Cities will not be able to palm housing off into neighbouring suburban and rural councils.
New government review
There will be a new government review on making it easier to build on brownfield land. Councils could be able to charge higher levies on greenfield sites to encourage developers not to use them.
Mr Gove promised a third review on allowing councils to refuse planning permission to developers who have in the past refused to build promptly on land for which they have planning permission.
There could also be a character test in planning to ensure that so-called "spiv" developers can be turned down.
And there could be a new beauty test for new developments, to prevent pretty areas being spoiled by new housing.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/05/michael-gove-house-building-targets-scrapped-tory-rebellion/
I'm not bitter about the money I had on Japan, of course.
Is my half-time multi-ball equivalent suggestion for FIFA.
This party needs taking out the back and putting down.
I am conserving my juju for Saturday
https://twitter.com/vintagehistoria/status/1598726254043095040
EDIT : Marconi - sorry
A record 506-4 on day one, an aggregate 921 runs scored at a faster rate than any Test in history. Bowlers going through more plans than Liz Truss, only with success. Field placements that never settled - five, six, or even seven catchers designed to cajole a batter into a mistake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/63856468
Effective, though.
The first footage of a German-supplied Flakpanzer Gepard SPAAG in use with Ukrainian forces appeared today, seen shooting down an incoming Russian cruise missile using its two 35mm autocannons.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1599810159236112406
It’s about supporting a pyramid of people who you like. And like you in return. The actual weapons or moon rockets are an incidental (and often accidental) product.
This is why people phoned up a certain NASA official, repeatedly, to order her to get “Her boy Elon, back in his lane”. Delivering more capability for less money was exactly what wasn’t wanted.
In this country, a decision to tell the makers of the Stingray torpedo to fuck off when they wanted hundreds of millions to test whether it would work with the new sub hunter planes -no actual working torpedos, just trials - led to a serious attempt to unseat the Defence minister of the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyranger_30
I say.
Covers all the bases. Apparently “Good Fun” against ground targets.
Labour Gov't: 51% (+1)
Conservative Gov't: 27% (-3)
Changes +/- 27 November
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-4-december-2022 https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1599831022992080911/photo/1
1. Lab and Con both say they will vote against any King's Speech by the leader of the other party,
2. both say no new indyref,
3. the SNP say they will vote against any King's Speech that doesn't promise an indyref,
4. the SNP + Greens win less than 50% of voteshare in Scotland, maybe even a lower proportion than the 46% they got in 2019.
It won't get to this, because "politics is the art of the possible", but if it did then the king wouldn't call for Starmer. (Or if he did, he'd only call on him to try to form a new government, and Starmer would have to go back and say he couldn't. I don't think he'd appoint him as leader of a minority government.) The king would call a new election. The SNP would then keep their fingers crossed for a minimal swing between Lab and Con.
By that time there would surely be a build-up of feeling in England in all political parties and all classes that seriously best for everyone south of the border would be if Scotland f***ed off. Aka "Hit the road, Jock".
https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/set-up-to-fail-why-housing-targets-based-on-flawed-numbers-threaten-our-countryside.pdf
The Gove proposals are far better than anything suggested in the last decade or more by Government.
He adds that 'there has been no improved offer presented to his union' and that they have "no choice" as the current offer is "extremely detrimental"
https://trib.al/Rx0iR33
📺 Sky 501 https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1599832935628259336/video/1
(Not you, driver, me.)
Which is I suppose at least IN Sussex.
Will the Vow 2.0 attract some soft Nats to Labour do we think?
I’ll get my coat.
It's however possible that they are targeting the pro-indy element within the *SLAB* vote, which is arguably a different matter.
Edit: without frightening the soft Unionist vote that has shifted to, and seemingly returned from, the ScoTories. Because devolution is more popular than indy or direct rule.
(too much, I know)
Do I vote Lab or SNP? Not sure.
I prefer comparing it to using bankers bonuses as a catch all solution.
If you do, then I would have thought the SNP is an obvious choice. It is an anti-Tory vote which increases the chances of them being kicked out but also gives you the chance that they might be able to wangle a referendum out of any post-election uncertainty. Not sure I see many downsides in those circumstances. Again, assuming you generally approve of the SNP record.
As with many aspects of our unwritten constitution, and the Americans found out with their written one, good governance relies on those in power acting in good faith.
An SNP First Minister of Scotland would veto everything, just because.
And I generally agree.
Except for the fact the unions don't mind 'strings' in pay deals when they're to their advantage. Which is why we ended up with secondman operation for twenty years longer than it should have lasted...
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
The latest Redfield & Wilton has Labour ahead by 22 points (48-26) and Starmer edging into a 4-point lead over Sunak as best Prime Minister (40-36). Needless to say, the headline figures would mean a huge Labour landslide.
****SUBSAMPLE ALERT***** (you just have to)
Only 52% of those who voted Conservative in 2019 would do so now. Among men, Labour leads by 13 (42-29) but among women the lead is 30 (54-24). Conservatives lead 36-35 among 65+ voters but are well behind with all other age groups.
In London, Labour leads 54-20, in Scotland it's SNP 34%, Labour 31%, Conservative 19% and in Wales Labour 50%, Conservative 34% (which is very different to yesterday's Welsh poll which had Labour at 51% and the Conservatives on just 18%).
Starmer is getting some worthwhile advice at the moment and it shows. He's really ramping it up at the right time.
Great Goal Brazil!
https://twitter.com/richardmarcj/status/1599733688480436225?s=20&t=Ltl-AtxuhmEVvG0D6RshsQ
In other words: what effect does the rallying of the DNVs and WNVs achieve?
IMHO, that's the (limited) recovery that the Conservatives would stage during a GE campaign.
Leaving the EU allowed the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster but Covid showed how easily the powers of the legislature could be transferred to the executive. Ministers gained huge powers at the expense of Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
The other side of this is the power of Whitehall and Westminster over local Government. Even Councils like Surrey, who raise 70% of their income from the Council Tax, are forced to dance to the centre's tune. Conservative (and other) Council leaders have talked of devolution in soft tones but what we really need is a much more wide-ranging transfer of authority and responsibility to elected local authorities (no need for regional Parliaments) including the power to raise taxes as they see fit. To be blunt, if people want better services and are prepared to pay for them, why should that be stopped by central Government?
Yes, let's recognise the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament in national matters and let's recognise the role of Parliament in holding the Executive to account. However, it's also time to return power to directly elected and accountable local councils (perhaps via PR to ensure all local voices are represented).