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.
Isn't it amazing how old people who use outdated language can still be 'woke' at heart and do the right thing when it matters
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 always thought it was in London, where he attended college.
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 think it became an anthem because it’s a banging song, with a great lyricism, and fantastic chorus. Plus many students knew someone like the girl - rich, but slumming 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.
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 always thought it was in London, where he attended college.
"She studied sculpture at St. Martin's College" ought to have placed the milieu. Cf. Mile End
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.
Isn't it amazing how old people who use outdated language can still be 'woke' at heart and do the right thing when it matters
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.
Isn't it amazing how old people who use outdated language can still be 'woke' at heart and do the right thing when it matters
Quite! And as President, not an insurgent.
It was certainly quite a bold declaration in his last innings at the MCC!
In an extract from the book, Hancock wrote on 2 April 2020 that “we must make sure that anyone going from a hospital into a care home is kept away from other residents”. Just over a year later, on 27 May 2021, he said the vast majority of Covid infections in care homes were due to staff, and not the policy of releasing hospital patients without testing them...
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 think it became an anthem because it’s a banging song, with a great lyricism, and fantastic chorus. Plus many students knew someone like the girl - rich, but slumming it.
She was not the only one to be so deluded that she thought that poor was cool.
"A new ad campaign from a Canadian fashion retailer features a terminally ill woman who ended her life by assisted suicide.
“Dying in a hospital is not what’s natural. It’s not what’s soft,” 37-year-old Jennyfer Hatch says at the start of the three-minute video. “In these kinds of moments, you need softness.”
Produced by La Maison Simons, a popular fashion chain better known as Simons, the video has received more than one million views since its release on Oct. 24 — the day after Hatch died. "
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.
Yes. Thank God the British had no involvement there.
Off topic, but a nice challenge for any who fancy their skills as election analysts: "Did uncontested races cost the Democrats the House popular vote?" David Byler asks the question, does some analysis, and comes to this not-entirely-exciting conclusion: "The cumulative result of all these calculations: Republicans would have gone from winning the House popular vote by about three percentage points to winning by around two. That’s not much of a shift."
Byler calls his analysis a "first cut" and promises to do more analysis in the future.
(Full disclosure: I have been thinking about the problem, and had a notion for a simpler approach than he used. Now, I'll have to study what Byler did before going further.)
As with many aspects of our unwritten constitution, and the Americans found out with their written one, good governance relies on those in power acting in good faith.
An SNP First Minister of Scotland would veto everything, just because.
But that person wouldn't be able to veto anything without two other parties agreeing.
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.
Matthew Parris assumes that most people are fixed in being either middle-class or working-class. He doesn't seem to consider that a lot of people are constantly moving between those categories based on their changing economic circumstances.
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 agree on PR, especially at local level. Intrigued that you're a former LD - how do you vote these days?
Off topic, but a nice challenge for any who fancy their skills as election analysts: "Did uncontested races cost the Democrats the House popular vote?" David Byler asks the question, does some analysis, and comes to this not-entirely-exciting conclusion: "The cumulative result of all these calculations: Republicans would have gone from winning the House popular vote by about three percentage points to winning by around two. That’s not much of a shift."
Byler calls his analysis a "first cut" and promises to do more analysis in the future.
(Full disclosure: I have been thinking about the problem, and had a notion for a simpler approach than he used. Now, I'll have to study what Byler did before going further.)
Fits with what 538 were saying before the vote, and worth taking into account when calculating how accurate national polls were.
Appalling but still not quite in the same class as Clarance Thomas refusing to recuse himself in respect of a matter his wife was an active campaigner for.
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.
I'm not sure about that last point. I've known people right across the income distribution, from the working poor right through to people who are close to being billionaires. I'd say that in different ways both the poorest and richest are cut off from how people in the middle live. Of course the richest are far fewer in number, so maybe that divide is less important.
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 think it became an anthem because it’s a banging song, with a great lyricism, and fantastic chorus. Plus many students knew someone like the girl - rich, but slumming it.
It is a great song. The whole album is brilliant. Jarvis Cocker is quite middle class himself of course, but what could be more middle class than hating on the upper middle class? Especially when they make it so easy.
The media and the Sussexes clearly need and benefit from each other, so every comment each makes just feels coated in insincerity. The only question is how many days or weeks of breathless news coverage we'll be treated to, which given the level of royal coverage we already get is likely to be a lot.
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 think it became an anthem because it’s a banging song, with a great lyricism, and fantastic chorus. Plus many students knew someone like the girl - rich, but slumming it.
but what could be more middle class than hating on the upper middle class?
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.
Rather sad if true. If the Royal Family have lost their stiff upper lips then I can't see that they have much to offer. Surely a great part of their existence was that they represented the stoicism of the Great British Public.
If they are now going to go whimpering to the press on the merest suggestion that they've been slighted -and by their own family -then I can't see them surviving as an institution or even serving a useful purpose
My son bought a ticket for the trains from the Lakes to London on the 27th so that he can get back to work on the 28th. Ditto my brother.
The journeys - normally 3 - 4 hours - were complicated enough: instead of straight down the West Coast to Euston they wandered round the North with multiple changes.
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.
Rather sad if true. If the Royal Family have lost their stiff upper lips then I can't see that they have much to offer. Surely a great part of their existence was that they represented the stoicism of the Great British Public.
If they are now going to go whimpering to the press on the merest suggestion that they've been slighted -and by their own family -then I can't see them surviving as an institution or even serving a useful purpose
Harry and Meghan are no longer part of the institution, they are no longer working royals even if they retain and use non HRH titles and Harry and his children have a place in the line of succession.
They will end up in exile like the Windsors for the rest of their lives, fortunately for Harry this is not the Middle Ages or Tudor times and his father and brother will not behead him for treachery. He can just see out the remainder of his life in California, hopefully finally in private life not endless media whinging
In fact, British attitudes towards immigrants today rank among the most positive globally.
It is these attitudes of warmth, of welcoming people into British culture and community, that define Britain today, not some archaic belief that only white Britons are true Britons.
Comments
Cf. Mile End
And I didn't believe him back then, either.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/05/matt-hancock-accused-of-rewriting-history-in-pandemic-book
...Stephen Dorrell, who served as health secretary under John Major, said he did not believe some of Hancock’s version of events were reliable, highlighting the issue of care homes.
In an extract from the book, Hancock wrote on 2 April 2020 that “we must make sure that anyone going from a hospital into a care home is kept away from other residents”. Just over a year later, on 27 May 2021, he said the vast majority of Covid infections in care homes were due to staff, and not the policy of releasing hospital patients without testing them...
“Dying in a hospital is not what’s natural. It’s not what’s soft,” 37-year-old Jennyfer Hatch says at the start of the three-minute video. “In these kinds of moments, you need softness.”
Produced by La Maison Simons, a popular fashion chain better known as Simons, the video has received more than one million views since its release on Oct. 24 — the day after Hatch died. "
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252941/canadian-fashion-retailer-runs-ad-promoting-assisted-suicide
Byler calls his analysis a "first cut" and promises to do more analysis in the future.
source$:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/05/midterms-2022-house-popular-vote-republicans-democrats/
(Full disclosure: I have been thinking about the problem, and had a notion for a simpler approach than he used. Now, I'll have to study what Byler did before going further.)
Buckle up.
If they are now going to go whimpering to the press on the merest suggestion that they've been slighted -and by their own family -then I can't see them surviving as an institution or even serving a useful purpose
The journeys - normally 3 - 4 hours - were complicated enough: instead of straight down the West Coast to Euston they wandered round the North with multiple changes.
What happens now. Do they get their money back?
They will end up in exile like the Windsors for the rest of their lives, fortunately for Harry this is not the Middle Ages or Tudor times and his father and brother will not behead him for treachery. He can just see out the remainder of his life in California, hopefully finally in private life not endless media whinging
In fact, British attitudes towards immigrants today rank among the most positive globally.
It is these attitudes of warmth, of welcoming people into British culture and community, that define Britain today, not some archaic belief that only white Britons are true Britons.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1599678411043373058
Or, to put it another way:
The likes of Farage and Murray are right to worry that they’re part of a minority group facing terminal decline.
In 2006, only 10% of Britons thought that to be truly British you had to be white. By 2020, that figure had fallen to 3%.