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.
We're also told every Reform Party supporter is a Conservative who will run back to the blue team at the first whiff of electoral gunpowder.so the "true" Conservative vote share is Conservative plus Reform (31% with R&W, 35% with Opinium).
The R&W split of the Conservative vote has 52% staying loyal, 19% Don't Know and 18% Labour, 5% to Reform and 3% to the LDs. Labour have 89% retention of their much smaller 2019 vote.
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
Seems labour peers are not impressed
If he had been sensible he should do the easy things like abolitioning hereditary peers and seeking the end of political appointees
There are far bigger fish to fry over the next years then constitutional wrangling over not only scrapping the HOL but how it is replaced
This is a bit sad - the radical left lockdown junkies who found the Chinese Communist Party a useful ally are still hooked and can't stop acting as apologists, even when their pals turn out to be using lockdowns to carry out genocides.
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
I think both this and the public school tax status thing are partly designed to address the "Labour won't do anything differently" cycnicism without actually committing to expenditure, since we don't know now what will be feasible 18 months from now, and what money there will need to be concentrated on the key priorities as seen as the time.
I actually suspect MORE people are into the World Cup than normal because
1. It is such an overwhelmingly welcome distraction from the ongoing horrors of the last 3 years, war, plague, famine, despair, bankruptcy, death, civil strife, poverty, the absence of flaked parmesan at my local M&S Simply Food
2. It is taking place in the Northern Hemisphere winter, so you can tune in to these matches and see sunshine by day and people in tee shirts in the evening and you think Aaaaah
There is actually an argument for having a lot of World Cups in hot sunny countries in the winter, they are such an agreeable break
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!
Unfortunately, whilst he's correctly identified a problem and come up with a range of policies, none of them addresses the biggest part of the problem.
I actually suspect MORE people are into the World Cup than normal because
1. It is such an overwhelmingly welcome distraction from the ongoing horrors of the last 3 years, war, plague, famine, despair, bankruptcy, death, civil strife, poverty, the absence of flaked parmesan at my local M&S Simply Food
2. It is taking place in the Northern Hemisphere winter, so you can tune in to these matches and see sunshine by day and people in tee shirts in the evening and you think Aaaaah
There is actually an argument for having a lot of World Cups in hot sunny countries in the winter, they are such an agreeable break
I've been thinking that. It's actually been a really pleasant relief and distraction ; in summer it just feels another part of summer fun.
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.
Yes, it's cheaper, which is why it happens. If we are saying that young people have to live on toxic waste dumps mainly in post-industrial bits of England, and that the residents will have to pay a premium for this privilege, we are in cloud cuckoo land. Unless the government creates a superfund the necessary works will not only never happen, they would be a waste of money compared to building on greenfield land.
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).
+1 a thoughtful post. In opposition, Starmer's team is clearly starting to think along the right lines - although central control and the party line is so hard-wired into left-wing ideology that I will only believe the devolution is real when I see it.
And it is notable that, so far at least, I haven't seen any mention of fairer voting systems - for the replacement Lords, for local government, or for our national parliament. Which is a huge elephant standing on the ground Labour is seeking to claim.
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
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
I think both this and the public school tax status thing are partly designed to address the "Labour won't do anything differently" cycnicism without actually committing to expenditure, since we don't know now what will be feasible 18 months from now, and what money there will need to be concentrated on the key priorities as seen as the time.
I class both house of lords reform and vat on public school fees as not actually doing anything. It is the same as the labour front bench saying we all plan to paint our genitals green.
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.
I think that barring some miraculous chain of events, developers just wont bother building on brownfield land because it just isn't viable because of the costs of regulatory compliance and build costs. Throw in the extreme amount of risk and chaos involved with getting planning permission and everyone will just simply walk away and give up. House prices would have to double to make it worthwhile and that isn't going to happen soon.
There is a site near to where I live in the south east, 70 houses on playing fields, in a built up area. The developers cannot afford to provide any affordable housing (and don't have to) because of build costs. They proved it and the Council checked it all out with their own indpendent consultants and they agreed. When you are faced with that, who will be able to afford to knock down an old factory and build flats on contaminated land?
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
Seems labour peers are not impressed
If he had been sensible he should do the easy things like abolitioning hereditary peers and seeking the end of political appointees
There are far bigger fish to fry over the next years then constitutional wrangling over not only scrapping the HOL but how it is replaced
Plus what the hell would newspaper columnists write about in the silly season (and new year)? Lots of jobs and newspaper runs depend on the existence of the HoL. It's so ridiculous that only the UK could come up with something so daft..
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.
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!
Unfortunately, whilst he's correctly identified a problem and come up with a range of policies, none of them addresses the biggest part of the problem.
I don't think that matters. At the moment it's all about burnishing the Labour Party 's image and looking progressive. I heard the Tory spokesman saying his party had been doing 'more modernising than any party in history'. Whether true or false it sounded defensive and frankly ridiculous. Whatever else the Tories might be they're not modernisers.
Brazil v Argentina in the semi is going to be EPIC
So many enticing games ahead
Its just football most people couldnt give a shit
You mean apart from the several billion people who watch it?
Good point
The number who watch it in the uk like most countries is less than half about 18 mill out of a population of 68 mill
26% of the population 74% dont give a crap about it
You're not wrong, but on that metric the population don't give a crap about anything at all.
No I think there are a lot of things people give a crap about just the three main parties , four if you consider the lib dems a main party which I dont. Dont want to talk about, have an agreement not to talk about as none of them has an answer. Football is just the circuses part of bread and circuses.
For almost 3 decades now the wage earners have been shafted over and over with higher and higher living costs while being told you never had it so good. About time we started pulling the world down around politicians ears quite frankly and telling them we arent taking it anymore. They are a complete and utter bunch of twats and I am not singling out any party here they are all a complete load of tosspots
I actually suspect MORE people are into the World Cup than normal because
1. It is such an overwhelmingly welcome distraction from the ongoing horrors of the last 3 years, war, plague, famine, despair, bankruptcy, death, civil strife, poverty, the absence of flaked parmesan at my local M&S Simply Food
2. It is taking place in the Northern Hemisphere winter, so you can tune in to these matches and see sunshine by day and people in tee shirts in the evening and you think Aaaaah
There is actually an argument for having a lot of World Cups in hot sunny countries in the winter, they are such an agreeable break
But that would deprive many of us of the experience of finding ourselves abroad on holiday when that country's team finds itself in some critical match. I'll always remember being on Italy when they knocked out Germany in the WC semis, even if I couldn't tell you what year it was. The whole place went nuts well into the small hours.
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.
But you can have so much fun pretending that Earth dug out from under houses is Toxic Waste.
So the builder has to pay a “specialist” to take it and deal with it.
If said specialist makes a lot of money selling sieved earth to landscape gardeners and gravel to concrete makers, it would take an evil mind to join that one up.
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!
He's following the Blair playbook to the letter. Even to the extent of including something constitutional. It looks serious and radical but not in a way that frightens. And I got a mail from him today with the strapline New Britain. I'm happy enough because I badly want a Labour majority government, but I do hope he avoids getting too close to Bernie Ecclestone and overzealous US presidents.
Following cricket is for the elderly, as the only sport that moves at a pace they can still keep up with.
You obviously did not watch the end of the test match today. If other teams played test match cricket the way that Stokes' England does football would be struggling for first place.
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!
He's following the Blair playbook to the letter. Even to the extent of including something constitutional. It looks serious and radical but not in a way that frightens. And I got a mail from him today with the strapline New Britain.
Wasn't that some sort of proto-fascist political party from our youth?
I actually suspect MORE people are into the World Cup than normal because
1. It is such an overwhelmingly welcome distraction from the ongoing horrors of the last 3 years, war, plague, famine, despair, bankruptcy, death, civil strife, poverty, the absence of flaked parmesan at my local M&S Simply Food
2. It is taking place in the Northern Hemisphere winter, so you can tune in to these matches and see sunshine by day and people in tee shirts in the evening and you think Aaaaah
There is actually an argument for having a lot of World Cups in hot sunny countries in the winter, they are such an agreeable break
But that would deprive many of us of the experience of finding ourselves abroad on holiday when that country's team finds itself in some critical match. I'll always remember being on Italy when they knocked out Germany in the WC semis, even if I couldn't tell you what year it was. The whole place went nuts well into the small hours.
Or watching a game with the commentary sounding like The Fast Show.
Talking of good/bad PR why would Harry want to slag off his own family? It can't do anything other than make him look bad if not sordid. Surely he's not short of money
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.
Broadly agree, though I think it's the upper limit - I wouldn't be surprised if half of them don't bother to vote. Bored by the Tories, unalarmed by Starmer, many will feel they might as well sit that one out.
Anyway, to respond to your question: 21% of 2019 Tories say (to R&W) they don't now know, and 2% say they won't vote (of those who plan to defect, 17% say to Lab and only 3% say to LD). They got 43% last time, so 23% (21+2) of those=10% of the electorate say they're now not sure. If 80% returned, the Tory share would rise by 8 points to 29% of the electorage.
To have a shot at winning with no obvious coalition partners, they probably need 38-40%. That doesn't look achievable unless they take a large chunk of people who are actually currently planning to vote Labour.
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.
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.
Why bother voting Slab? They are are about as left wing as my late lamented tortoise, and British nationalists above all else. Else they wouldn't have cut their own throats in 2014.
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!
He's following the Blair playbook to the letter. Even to the extent of including something constitutional. It looks serious and radical but not in a way that frightens. And I got a mail from him today with the strapline New Britain.
Wasn't that some sort of proto-fascist political party from our youth?
It does have that air about it. Might work again though. I sense the country might be as sick of the Tories as they were in 1997. I certainly am.
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
After the first three goals, the disrespectful arrogance of the Brazilians started to outweigh the appeal of their footballing brilliance, so I switched to watching K-drama.
Talking of good/bad PR why would Harry want to slag off his own family? It can't do anything other than make him look bad if not sordid. Surely he's not short of money
I'm certainly hoping for much juicier stuff (and more explicit taddling), otherwise his sorrowful emoting just comes across as a bit overwrought.
As for why, I assume he believes it to be both important and retains focus on him and his own brand - he doesn't have a brand separate to the rest, so he cannot plough his own path without either returning to type or being super anti.
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!
Rogerdamus has spoken.
Its summer 2025. The first book about the miraculous Tory fight back is published. The first chapter, 'Starmer's first mistakes', opens with a discussion of the disconnect between the red wall Labour voters and London dominated Labour party; the focus on Lord's reform is the first sign of playing badly in the focus groups...
Brazil v Argentina in the semi is going to be EPIC
So many enticing games ahead
Its just football most people couldnt give a shit
You mean apart from the several billion people who watch it?
Good point
The number who watch it in the uk like most countries is less than half about 18 mill out of a population of 68 mill
26% of the population 74% dont give a crap about it
You're not wrong, but on that metric the population don't give a crap about anything at all.
Reminds me of people saying something like X percentage of people joined the queue for the Queen, and that was hardly any. As if getting 200k, or whatever the number was, of people to stand hours in a queue like that, was not really unusual and significant even so.
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
I think both this and the public school tax status thing are partly designed to address the "Labour won't do anything differently" cycnicism without actually committing to expenditure, since we don't know now what will be feasible 18 months from now, and what money there will need to be concentrated on the key priorities as seen as the time.
I class both house of lords reform and vat on public school fees as not actually doing anything. It is the same as the labour front bench saying we all plan to paint our genitals green.
But what you think isn't of any relevance given you couldn't vote Labour without your head falling off.
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!
Rogerdamus has spoken.
Its summer 2025. The first book about the miraculous Tory fight back is published. The first chapter, 'Starmer's first mistakes', opens with a discussion of the disconnect between the red wall Labour voters and London dominated Labour party; the focus on Lord's reform is the first sign of playing badly in the focus groups...
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
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!
Unfortunately, whilst he's correctly identified a problem and come up with a range of policies, none of them addresses the biggest part of the problem.
I don't think that matters. At the moment it's all about burnishing the Labour Party 's image and looking progressive. I heard the Tory spokesman saying his party had been doing 'more modernising than any party in history'. Whether true or false it sounded defensive and frankly ridiculous. Whatever else the Tories might be they're not modernisers.
I don't care how they look, I want them to have some ideas what to do.
Such a shame Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie isn't around to see this England team
He was captain of Hampshire when they won their first County Championship in 1961
According to Wiki, "10 of their 19 victories that season are attributable to bold declarations on the third (and last) day, in a summer when the opposing team could not be made to follow-on"
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
And of course, having even 2 seats being non-Labour is actually a change for Newham.
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).
+1 a thoughtful post. In opposition, Starmer's team is clearly starting to think along the right lines - although central control and the party line is so hard-wired into left-wing ideology that I will only believe the devolution is real when I see it.
And it is notable that, so far at least, I haven't seen any mention of fairer voting systems - for the replacement Lords, for local government, or for our national parliament. Which is a huge elephant standing on the ground Labour is seeking to claim.
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
Is there any evidence that local authorities are more competent than Central Government? The problems I see are:
1) Lack of accountability - most voters know nothing about what their local council actually do. Local councils are more likely to be one party states and there may only be one local paper. 2) Nimbyism/parochialism - Councils don't want to build unpopular but unnecessary things like power stations and have a poor record with working with neighbouring councils e.g. the Bristol/South Gloucs Supertram that never happened due to being unable to agree a route. 3) Postcode lotteries - The more freedom you allow councils, the more variation you will get in outcomes. 4) Buck passing - We already get this with the devolved bodies now. Anything good, the locals take credit. Anything bad, you blame Westminster. The danger for Westminster politicians in devolution is that you get punished for things you don't control. You also risk getting hard left or right councils, which could embarrass the national parties
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
It was indeed Mr Parris who did that: see Wiki
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
Lewisham council: every single seat Labour. It just doesn’t make for good or accountable local government. We used to have a green and he was by far the most active and responsive.
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).
+1 a thoughtful post. In opposition, Starmer's team is clearly starting to think along the right lines - although central control and the party line is so hard-wired into left-wing ideology that I will only believe the devolution is real when I see it.
And it is notable that, so far at least, I haven't seen any mention of fairer voting systems - for the replacement Lords, for local government, or for our national parliament. Which is a huge elephant standing on the ground Labour is seeking to claim.
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
Is there any evidence that local authorities are more competent than Central Government? The problems I see are:
1) Lack of accountability - most voters know nothing about what their local council actually do. Local councils are more likely to be one party states and there may only be one local paper. 2) Nimbyism/parochialism - Councils don't want to build unpopular but unnecessary things like power stations and have a poor record with working with neighbouring councils e.g. the Bristol/South Gloucs Supertram that never happened due to being unable to agree a route. 3) Postcode lotteries - The more freedom you allow councils, the more variation you will get in outcomes. 4) Buck passing - We already get this with the devolved bodies now. Anything good, the locals take credit. Anything bad, you blame Westminster. The danger for Westminster politicians in devolution is that you get punished for things you don't control. You also risk getting hard left or right councils, which could embarrass the national parties
In the small commune in France where our holiday home is (population: 250) the local mayor and council are elected, they set spending priorities and these get voted on, and they make the decisions on planning. On the latter they are generally much more sophisticated and able to find compromise than any council I’ve dealt with in the UK. So it is certainly achievable. And that’s in France which is by European standards very centralised.
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
Lewisham council: every single seat Labour. It just doesn’t make for good or accountable local government. We used to have a green and he was by far the most active and responsive.
I agree about a different system for local councils but would suggest some sort of additional member system instead.
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
Seems labour peers are not impressed
If he had been sensible he should do the easy things like abolitioning hereditary peers and seeking the end of political appointees
There are far bigger fish to fry over the next years then constitutional wrangling over not only scrapping the HOL but how it is replaced
Plus what the hell would newspaper columnists write about in the silly season (and new year)? Lots of jobs and newspaper runs depend on the existence of the HoL. It's so ridiculous that only the UK could come up with something so daft..
Just look at the (former) poster lady of Scottish unionism. Endless columns filled and photos of scanty lingerie models. Though tbf some of that was before the peerage.
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
I think both this and the public school tax status thing are partly designed to address the "Labour won't do anything differently" cycnicism without actually committing to expenditure, since we don't know now what will be feasible 18 months from now, and what money there will need to be concentrated on the key priorities as seen as the time.
I class both house of lords reform and vat on public school fees as not actually doing anything. It is the same as the labour front bench saying we all plan to paint our genitals green.
But what you think isn't of any relevance given you couldn't vote Labour without your head falling off.
I also wont vote tory lib dem or snp unless I can vote with a tommy gun
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
Lewisham council: every single seat Labour. It just doesn’t make for good or accountable local government. We used to have a green and he was by far the most active and responsive.
In Richmond the Lib Dems have 48 seats with 55% share of the vote. The Tories have just one seat with 25% and he's 92 years old. A crazy system.
At national level. the SNP got 48 seats with 4% of the vote. The Greens got one seat with 3% of the vote. It's a joke.
There's also I think a fundamental misunderstanding of how local Government is evolving.
There's a lot of cross-authority working either through formal or informal agreement. Resources are being pooled, jobs and offices shared and there's a greater sense of co-operation and collaboration (less so in the two-tier world where the Counties and Districts/Boroughs remain very often at odds).
Talking of good/bad PR why would Harry want to slag off his own family? It can't do anything other than make him look bad if not sordid. Surely he's not short of money
I don't think it is for the money and I don't think there is personal animosity with his family. No doubt there have been rows but every family has those.
I think it is caused by sorrow for his mother and concern for his wife driven by the royal system - the courtiers and advisors. We'll learn more on Thursday.
Such a shame Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie isn't around to see this England team
He was captain of Hampshire when they won their first County Championship in 1961
According to Wiki, "10 of their 19 victories that season are attributable to bold declarations on the third (and last) day, in a summer when the opposing team could not be made to follow-on"
Also one of the great party animals of English cricket of course.
He was captaining a side on a tour, and was ordered by the organiser, 'Now remember, Mr Ingleby Mackenzie, you need to get your chaps into bed by 9.30.'
CIM gave his boss an odd look. 'What's the point of that?' he asked. 'They have to be at the ground for ten.'
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
Lewisham council: every single seat Labour. It just doesn’t make for good or accountable local government. We used to have a green and he was by far the most active and responsive.
In Richmond the Lib Dems have 48 seats with 55% share of the vote. The Tories have just one seat with 25% and he's 92 years old. A crazy system.
At national level. the SNP got 48 seats with 4% of the vote. The Greens got one seat with 3% of the vote. It's a joke.
It's about numbers of MPs. And every MP in the UK wins a seat with just 0.1% of the total UK vote if he or she is doing very well.
Such a shame Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie isn't around to see this England team
He was captain of Hampshire when they won their first County Championship in 1961
According to Wiki, "10 of their 19 victories that season are attributable to bold declarations on the third (and last) day, in a summer when the opposing team could not be made to follow-on"
Also one of the great party animals of English cricket of course.
He was captaining a side on a tour, and was ordered by the organiser, 'Now remember, Mr Ingleby Mackenzie, you need to get your chaps into bed by 9.30.'
CIM gave his boss an odd look. 'What's the point of that?' he asked. 'They have to be at the ground for ten.'
And a gambler
I'm told he used to take a radio onto the pitch for the umpire to hold, so he could listen to racing results between overs
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.
Yes, it's cheaper, which is why it happens. If we are saying that young people have to live on toxic waste dumps mainly in post-industrial bits of England, and that the residents will have to pay a premium for this privilege, we are in cloud cuckoo land. Unless the government creates a superfund the necessary works will not only never happen, they would be a waste of money compared to building on greenfield land.
Another ill informed comment. Most brownfield land is not polluted and is not former industrial land And that which is goes through extensive clean-up before it is allowed to be built on. The only reason developers don't like it is it cuts their profit margins. They would much rather sit on vast tracts of undeveloped land, failing to use it whilst moaning about planning permission in order to get more greenfield land released for development. Smaller developers outside of the big 6 are developing brownfield sites very successfully. What we need to do is stop releasing land to the big developers and start charging them realistic council tax on the plots they are failing to develop. Then you would see them change their tune fast enough
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
I must confess, as a former LD, I've backed away from PR at Westminster but I think the argument for PR at local elections is much more powerful.
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
Lewisham council: every single seat Labour. It just doesn’t make for good or accountable local government. We used to have a green and he was by far the most active and responsive.
In Richmond the Lib Dems have 48 seats with 55% share of the vote. The Tories have just one seat with 25% and he's 92 years old. A crazy system.
At national level. the SNP got 48 seats with 4% of the vote. The Greens got one seat with 3% of the vote. It's a joke.
Yes, the Richmond case is a good example. The present voting system can be most unfair to the Conservatives too, as well as others - but only in places. Usually they are the winners out of the rotten system. Which is why they like it.
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
It was indeed Mr Parris who did that: see Wiki
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
M Parris wrote about this recently in the Speccie (IIRC) quite movingly pointing out that however hard you try you can't, from a middle class position, replicate the lives of the poorest, because you know it will come to an end, and you have a life to return to.
He also made the point (correctly in my view), that because of this the real gulf is not between the uber rich and the middling sort, but between the poorest and everyone else. The Bentley is in the same traffic jam as the Fiesta, the Rolex tells the same time as the Chinese cheapo etc. But the person with no car, no bank balance, no network, no prospects lives in a different and distressing world. He is right.
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
It was indeed Mr Parris who did that: see Wiki
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
M Parris wrote about this recently in the Speccie (IIRC) quite movingly pointing out that however hard you try you can't, from a middle class position, replicate the lives of the poorest, because you know it will come to an end, and you have a life to return to.
He also made the point (correctly in my view), that because of this the real gulf is not between the uber rich and the middling sort, but between the poorest and everyone else. The Bentley is in the same traffic jam as the Fiesta, the Rolex tells the same time as the Chinese cheapo etc. But the person with no car, no bank balance, no network, no prospects lives in a different and distressing world. He is right.
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
It was indeed Mr Parris who did that: see Wiki
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
M Parris wrote about this recently in the Speccie (IIRC) quite movingly pointing out that however hard you try you can't, from a middle class position, replicate the lives of the poorest, because you know it will come to an end, and you have a life to return to.
He also made the point (correctly in my view), that because of this the real gulf is not between the uber rich and the middling sort, but between the poorest and everyone else. The Bentley is in the same traffic jam as the Fiesta, the Rolex tells the same time as the Chinese cheapo etc. But the person with no car, no bank balance, no network, no prospects lives in a different and distressing world. He is right.
Also noted by the great political thinker J Cocker, of course.
Such a shame Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie isn't around to see this England team
He was captain of Hampshire when they won their first County Championship in 1961
According to Wiki, "10 of their 19 victories that season are attributable to bold declarations on the third (and last) day, in a summer when the opposing team could not be made to follow-on"
Also one of the great party animals of English cricket of course.
He was captaining a side on a tour, and was ordered by the organiser, 'Now remember, Mr Ingleby Mackenzie, you need to get your chaps into bed by 9.30.'
CIM gave his boss an odd look. 'What's the point of that?' he asked. 'They have to be at the ground for ten.'
And a gambler
I'm told he used to take a radio onto the pitch for the umpire to hold, so he could listen to racing results between overs
Oh, and he was President of the MCC when they allowed women members in 1998; a campaign that he led in the members' vote
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
It was indeed Mr Parris who did that: see Wiki
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
M Parris wrote about this recently in the Speccie (IIRC) quite movingly pointing out that however hard you try you can't, from a middle class position, replicate the lives of the poorest, because you know it will come to an end, and you have a life to return to.
He also made the point (correctly in my view), that because of this the real gulf is not between the uber rich and the middling sort, but between the poorest and everyone else. The Bentley is in the same traffic jam as the Fiesta, the Rolex tells the same time as the Chinese cheapo etc. But the person with no car, no bank balance, no network, no prospects lives in a different and distressing world. He is right.
Interesting, though IMO there is a bit too much faux 'we're all in it together' from that Tory. There is still a hell of a gulf between the ueberrich and the middling sort. Not least because the middling sort can all too easily end up at the bottom of the heap - redundancy, divorce, illness, and so on. As some are beginning to find at present.
Such a shame Colin Ingleby-Mackenzie isn't around to see this England team
He was captain of Hampshire when they won their first County Championship in 1961
According to Wiki, "10 of their 19 victories that season are attributable to bold declarations on the third (and last) day, in a summer when the opposing team could not be made to follow-on"
Also one of the great party animals of English cricket of course.
He was captaining a side on a tour, and was ordered by the organiser, 'Now remember, Mr Ingleby Mackenzie, you need to get your chaps into bed by 9.30.'
CIM gave his boss an odd look. 'What's the point of that?' he asked. 'They have to be at the ground for ten.'
And a gambler
I'm told he used to take a radio onto the pitch for the umpire to hold, so he could listen to racing results between overs
Oh, and he was President of the MCC when they allowed women members in 1998; a campaign that he led in the members' vote
He said that "Women are a very fine species"
He can't have listened to his biology lessons at school, else he'd be wondering how anyone could breed. Still, it is at least a change from those Americans who classified their imported enslaved Africans as a different species.
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.
Now if we could only get Tory (ir, tbf, almost any) MPs* to live on social housing schemes and reduce their income to the minimum wage for more than a TV programme at a time ...
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
I seem to remember that Matthew Paris did something along those lines. Can't recall if it was for a brief telly/times-esque period though. But I remember him saying how he felt it changed him.
It was indeed Mr Parris who did that: see Wiki
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
M Parris wrote about this recently in the Speccie (IIRC) quite movingly pointing out that however hard you try you can't, from a middle class position, replicate the lives of the poorest, because you know it will come to an end, and you have a life to return to.
He also made the point (correctly in my view), that because of this the real gulf is not between the uber rich and the middling sort, but between the poorest and everyone else. The Bentley is in the same traffic jam as the Fiesta, the Rolex tells the same time as the Chinese cheapo etc. But the person with no car, no bank balance, no network, no prospects lives in a different and distressing world. He is right.
Also noted by the great political thinker J Cocker, of course.
Yes, though I think Jarvis drew the divide somewhere differently: his gulf was between a shipping heiress and the working poor (rent a flat above a shop, cut your hair and get a job) of, I don't know, in my head it was always Gleadless, Sheffield, but I think by then he had moved to London, so it was probably Willesden or somewhere.
I was always vaguely amused how well this song became an anthem among students, most of whom genuinely would never understand how it felt to live their lives with no meaning or control. Maybe the mood was celebratory - "hooray, we're never going to be poor."
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.
All the evidence is that the US better run when different parties control different institutions.
Yet also it is the only major western nation without universal healthcare because of the Senate veto over legislation and the gridlock when different parties control different chambers too
Comments
So many enticing games ahead
The R&W split of the Conservative vote has 52% staying loyal, 19% Don't Know and 18% Labour, 5% to Reform and 3% to the LDs. Labour have 89% retention of their much smaller 2019 vote.
Good point
If he had been sensible he should do the easy things like abolitioning hereditary peers and seeking the end of political appointees
There are far bigger fish to fry over the next years then constitutional wrangling over not only scrapping the HOL but how it is replaced
This is a bit sad - the radical left lockdown junkies who found the Chinese Communist Party a useful ally are still hooked and can't stop acting as apologists, even when their pals turn out to be using lockdowns to carry out genocides.
26% of the population 74% dont give a crap about it
1. It is such an overwhelmingly welcome distraction from the ongoing horrors of the last 3 years, war, plague, famine, despair, bankruptcy, death, civil strife, poverty, the absence of flaked parmesan at my local M&S Simply Food
2. It is taking place in the Northern Hemisphere winter, so you can tune in to these matches and see sunshine by day and people in tee shirts in the evening and you think Aaaaah
There is actually an argument for having a lot of World Cups in hot sunny countries in the winter, they are such an agreeable break
Yes, Qatar, yes, migrant deaths, yes, Pride Flags, etc etc etc etc
But, the fact is, it's a brilliant world cup. With great football, three or four MAJOR star players, and some fantastic upsets
And it is notable that, so far at least, I haven't seen any mention of fairer voting systems - for the replacement Lords, for local government, or for our national parliament. Which is a huge elephant standing on the ground Labour is seeking to claim.
A rarely commented on additional drawback of our voting system is that governments which manage to stick around for a while find that local councils flip the other way such that the government finds itself facing the LGA and a critical mass of key councils controlled by its opponents - hence they get added to the list of enemies within who can't be trusted.
PR at local level would reduce this effect, both because it wouldn't exaggerate swings of votes into larger swings of seats, and because far fewer councils would be majority controlled in the first place.
https://sportytell.com/sports/most-popular-sports-world/
There is a site near to where I live in the south east, 70 houses on playing fields, in a built up area. The developers cannot afford to provide any affordable housing (and don't have to) because of build costs. They proved it and the Council checked it all out with their own indpendent consultants and they agreed. When you are faced with that, who will be able to afford to knock down an old factory and build flats on contaminated land?
Brazil have arrived today.
For almost 3 decades now the wage earners have been shafted over and over with higher and higher living costs while being told you never had it so good. About time we started pulling the world down around politicians ears quite frankly and telling them we arent taking it anymore. They are a complete and utter bunch of twats and I am not singling out any party here they are all a complete load of tosspots
So the builder has to pay a “specialist” to take it and deal with it.
If said specialist makes a lot of money selling sieved earth to landscape gardeners and gravel to concrete makers, it would take an evil mind to join that one up.
E-thethethe, e-thethethethe, Chris Waddle.
Anyway, to respond to your question: 21% of 2019 Tories say (to R&W) they don't now know, and 2% say they won't vote (of those who plan to defect, 17% say to Lab and only 3% say to LD). They got 43% last time, so 23% (21+2) of those=10% of the electorate say they're now not sure. If 80% returned, the Tory share would rise by 8 points to 29% of the electorage.
To have a shot at winning with no obvious coalition partners, they probably need 38-40%. That doesn't look achievable unless they take a large chunk of people who are actually currently planning to vote Labour.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/scotland2021
*Dennis Skinner not intended.
As for why, I assume he believes it to be both important and retains focus on him and his own brand - he doesn't have a brand separate to the rest, so he cannot plough his own path without either returning to type or being super anti.
Its summer 2025. The first book about the miraculous Tory fight back is published. The first chapter, 'Starmer's first mistakes', opens with a discussion of the disconnect between the red wall Labour voters and London dominated Labour party; the focus on Lord's reform is the first sign of playing badly in the focus groups...
You heard it here first.
K-pop!
I cite, as always, Newham where Labour won 64 of 66 seats on 61.2% of the vote. The Greens won two seats with 16.7% of the vote while the Conservatives got 14.1% and nothing. Nearly two in five of those who voted didn't vote Labour yet they are represented by just two Green councillors.
With STV, Labour would still be in charge with 40 seats, the Greens would have 11, the Conservatives 9 and other parties 6. It wouldn't stop Labour running the Council but more opinions would be heard and that must count for something in a plural democracy.
He was captain of Hampshire when they won their first County Championship in 1961
According to Wiki, "10 of their 19 victories that season are attributable to bold declarations on the third (and last) day, in a summer when the opposing team could not be made to follow-on"
He would have loved this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ingleby-Mackenzie
1) Lack of accountability - most voters know nothing about what their local council actually do. Local councils are more likely to be one party states and there may only be one local paper.
2) Nimbyism/parochialism - Councils don't want to build unpopular but unnecessary things like power stations and have a poor record with working with neighbouring councils e.g. the Bristol/South Gloucs Supertram that never happened due to being unable to agree a route.
3) Postcode lotteries - The more freedom you allow councils, the more variation you will get in outcomes.
4) Buck passing - We already get this with the devolved bodies now. Anything good, the locals take credit. Anything bad, you blame Westminster. The danger for Westminster politicians in devolution is that you get punished for things you don't control. You also risk getting hard left or right councils, which could embarrass the national parties
"As an MP he took part in a World in Action documentary during 1984 requiring him to live in Newcastle for a week on £26.80, the then state social security payment set for a single adult by the government he supported as a Conservative.[9][10] The experiment came to an embarrassing end when he ran out of money for the electricity meter. Twenty years later, in 2004, he attempted the experiment again for the documentary For the Benefit of Mr Parris, Revisited.[11][12]"
At national level. the SNP got 48 seats with 4% of the vote. The Greens got one seat with 3% of the vote. It's a joke.
There's a lot of cross-authority working either through formal or informal agreement. Resources are being pooled, jobs and offices shared and there's a greater sense of co-operation and collaboration (less so in the two-tier world where the Counties and Districts/Boroughs remain very often at odds).
Edit, really can't stand this age restrictive nonsense on twitter. It is the last embedded tweet on this one: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/5/2140133/-Ukraine-update-Russia-can-t-quit-Bakhmut-as-Ukrainian-air-defenses-stymie-latest-missile-barrage
I think it is caused by sorrow for his mother and concern for his wife driven by the royal system - the courtiers and advisors. We'll learn more on Thursday.
He was captaining a side on a tour, and was ordered by the organiser, 'Now remember, Mr Ingleby Mackenzie, you need to get your chaps into bed by 9.30.'
CIM gave his boss an odd look. 'What's the point of that?' he asked. 'They have to be at the ground for ten.'
I'm told he used to take a radio onto the pitch for the umpire to hold, so he could listen to racing results between overs
He also made the point (correctly in my view), that because of this the real gulf is not between the uber rich and the middling sort, but between the poorest and everyone else. The Bentley is in the same traffic jam as the Fiesta, the Rolex tells the same time as the Chinese cheapo etc. But the person with no car, no bank balance, no network, no prospects lives in a different and distressing world. He is right.
He said that "Women are a very fine species"
DeSantis to offer VIP access to his inauguration — for $50K to $1M
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/05/florida-desantis-inauguration-vip-access-00072209
It felt like big stones in the packet. I was ready to make a joke about kidney stones
Then I saw the description on the packet; they were climbing stones. I was carrying Kidney's stones
But he never came to the door, and I had to leave them in a safe place. I made the Kidney's stones joke on the red 739 card though
I was always vaguely amused how well this song became an anthem among students, most of whom genuinely would never understand how it felt to live their lives with no meaning or control. Maybe the mood was celebratory - "hooray, we're never going to be poor."
Alito jokes about Black kids in KKK outfits during Supreme Court argument
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3762724-alito-jokes-about-black-kids-in-kkk-outfits-during-supreme-court-argument/