Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
Have you allowed for the possibility that parliamentarians might have engaged in a tricky and controversial topic to come to a considered conclusion, which inevitably some people will reasonably disagree with? At the party level only the Conservatives were opposed and even then four refused to vote that way with two abstentions and two voting for? Scotland isn't proposing anything fundamentally different from legislation already in place or in flight in such countries as Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, France
There is also the point that Mr Sunak has completely screwed up, within a very few days, what was shaping up to be a good start in relations with the SG after the mess his predecessors made of it.
I would be surprised if it wasn’t discussed at Sunak and Sturgeon’s recent meeting. I would be very surprised if Sunak didn’t raise the effect on the wider UK, and suggest that a compromise should be reached. I would be extremely surprised if Sturgeon didn’t refuse to compromise, partly for political reasons, partly because she is 100% supportive of the provisions of the bill, and partly because the Greens would remove support from her government if she backed down. I would be flabbergasted if Alister Jack isn’t delighted at the opportunity to issue a Section 35 order, and if he isn’t hoping to issue many, many more.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
Good evening, Big G. In a way that's precisely what I'd like to check - if it was a matter of his personal feelings or his professional judgement as an advisor/psephologist. My memory is very much the latter, which is why it is interesting. Not a party activist but an indepndent spad sort of type.
I have little doubt there are strong feelings on both sides and clearly Sunak has decided to challenge its effect on UK law and no doubt the Courts will decide
I am not at all convinced this subject is going to help Sturgeon but we will see, I could be wrong
Not sure if helps of hinders anyone except at the margins. It’s a very intra-middle class kind of culture war. Might damage the Lib Dem vote a bit in the home counties? Maybe
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
I have been amazed just how popular it is with younger people, who are the SNP and Greens’ core support.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
Even if you’re a Scot whose against the legislation I’m sure sure Sturgeon will make the point that the next time it could be something you agree with .
Westminster blocking legislation voted through by the elected representatives of the Scottish People is appalling .
It depends if it directly affects UK wide legislation and is outside of the devolved powers
Time and the courts will decide if a resolution cannot be found between UK and the Scottish devolved administration
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
Even if you’re a Scot whose against the legislation I’m sure sure Sturgeon will make the point that the next time it could be something you agree with .
Westminster blocking legislation voted through by the elected representatives of the Scottish People is appalling .
It’s not appalling, anymore than the U.K. enacting article 50 was. It’s part of the legislation. Ultimately the change in the law in Scotland has potential ramifications in rUK and it needs another look. That’s democracy, not ‘appalling’.
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
It is worth pointing out that there are lots of smaller developers all round the country who view their job as being to build houses just like it says on the tin. One of the problems under the current system is they often get frozen out by the big firms when it comes to both buying land and getting planning permission for it.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
I feel I must applaud those foresightful fellows who apparently saw this S35 situation thundering down the road but have modestly uttered nary a word about it until very recently. Bravo!
An unfortunate leap from reticence to incontinence on the subject, but one can’t have everything.
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The big problem is that you often end up with one big developer having a near monopoly in development in an *area*.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
You’re missing the point . It’s irrelevant whether you like or hate the legislation. It was supported by a clear majority in Holyrood.
I would just gently say it depends if the devolved Scottish administration have made laws that conflict with UK law and are outside their power
Nobody can answer this short of a court ruling, and if we had mature politicians on all sides a compromise would be found but I think that is an expectation unlikely to be realised
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
Will people think the Conservatives are being cruel, or being sensible?
This chap, who'd worked for the Tories [I think - going on memory], felt the former, which surprised me - which is why it's annoying not to be able to find the reference.
It seems on this subject you can find pro and against support across and within all the parties, indeed hasn't the SNP had resignations over it?
Good evening, Big G. In a way that's precisely what I'd like to check - if it was a matter of his personal feelings or his professional judgement as an advisor/psephologist. My memory is very much the latter, which is why it is interesting. Not a party activist but an indepndent spad sort of type.
I have little doubt there are strong feelings on both sides and clearly Sunak has decided to challenge its effect on UK law and no doubt the Courts will decide
I am not at all convinced this subject is going to help Sturgeon but we will see, I could be wrong
Not sure if helps of hinders anyone except at the margins. It’s a very intra-middle class kind of culture war. Might damage the Lib Dem vote a bit in the home counties? Maybe
In the current climate Sunak will be desperate for the culture war opportunity this gives him, it is an issue where he can drive a clear wedge between him, the SNP, Starmer and the LDs (though Starmer is sensibly trying to not push support for an unpopular GRB as hard as Sturgeon)
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy Spain etc
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
“It’s going to take some time to convince people that we’re back to normal,” he said.
The Bank’s governor confirmed it made a profit of about £3.8bn from selling government bonds bought in the emergency intervention in financial markets used to smooth over the turmoil of the mini-budget. The cash would go to the Treasury, he added…
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I agree with a lot of what you write here. But I suspect you have the causality wrong on this:
"It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash."
If the SNP wanted to create a constitutional clash there are any other number of ways that it could (and indeed has) take. All of which would be more popular with the Yes movement, all of which being much more obvious hills to die on in the cause of independence.
In this case I very much suspect it is the other way round. Whether it's ultimately right or wrong, the SNP wants this for what the legislation achieves, not for the constitutional clash. That may be a secondary benefit in the longer run, but it is not the primary goal of getting the legislation through.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy
Do you not think that comment rather supports what FF43 just said? Actually I agree with Cyclefree rather than FF43 in this debate but still, your comment was rather self defeating.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
It is worth pointing out that there are lots of smaller developers all round the country who view their job as being to build houses just like it says on the tin. One of the problems under the current system is they often get frozen out by the big firms when it comes to both buying land and getting planning permission for it.
I wonder if it's something that bigger sites (places like Poundbury, Cambourne or Welborne) do better by having a sensible division of labour. One master organisation to do the geography, design codes and community facilities, and housebuilders... building houses. Though it must be harder to be coherent or community-creating if the aim is to put a few houses on whatever scraps of brownfield land become available.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
“It’s going to take some time to convince people that we’re back to normal,” he said.
The Bank’s governor confirmed it made a profit of about £3.8bn from selling government bonds bought in the emergency intervention in financial markets used to smooth over the turmoil of the mini-budget. The cash would go to the Treasury, he added…
Of course it worked out well - the BOE was fireselling bonds. It was forced to buy them back, and sell them when their value had risen. That should have been its policy to start with.
“It’s going to take some time to convince people that we’re back to normal,” he said.
The Bank’s governor confirmed it made a profit of about £3.8bn from selling government bonds bought in the emergency intervention in financial markets used to smooth over the turmoil of the mini-budget. The cash would go to the Treasury, he added…
I’m confused. Did Truss cost the nation 30 billion, or are we actually in profit?
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I feel I must applaud those foresightful fellows who apparently saw this S35 situation thundering down the road but have modestly uttered nary a word about it until very recently. Bravo!
An unfortunate leap from reticence to incontinence on the subject, but one can’t have everything.
Are you feeling OK? It's been obviously coming down the tracks since forever. Searching PB is a nightmare but here's HYUFD in December 2022
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
It is worth pointing out that there are lots of smaller developers all round the country who view their job as being to build houses just like it says on the tin. One of the problems under the current system is they often get frozen out by the big firms when it comes to both buying land and getting planning permission for it.
I wonder if it's something that bigger sites (places like Poundbury, Cambourne or Welborne) do better by having a sensible division of labour. One master organisation to do the geography, design codes and community facilities, and housebuilders... building houses. Though it must be harder to be coherent or community-creating if the aim is to put a few houses on whatever scraps of brownfield land become available.
The Dutch do it very well. The local authority buys the land (or in the case of the Polder reclamations is ceded the land by central government. They then sort out the provision of access and utilities. Then they put plots up for sale of various sizes which can be bought by individuals. Those individuals can self build or, more usually, get a local building firm to build the house for them to any of more than 2 dozen different designs based on their needs and desires. The sale of the plot includes a relevant proportion of the cost of the utilities, roads etc so the council is not out of pocket.
It is a massively successful scheme and has seen whole towns and suburbs built in this way.
This is an example I have mentioned on here before:
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
It is worth pointing out that there are lots of smaller developers all round the country who view their job as being to build houses just like it says on the tin. One of the problems under the current system is they often get frozen out by the big firms when it comes to both buying land and getting planning permission for it.
I wonder if it's something that bigger sites (places like Poundbury, Cambourne or Welborne) do better by having a sensible division of labour. One master organisation to do the geography, design codes and community facilities, and housebuilders... building houses. Though it must be harder to be coherent or community-creating if the aim is to put a few houses on whatever scraps of brownfield land become available.
Chiswick was built like that, for example - street grid laid out, services in, one side of a street sold to a developer, with plots laid out.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
No it isn't legal in Italy, gay marriage isn't even legal in Italy. Every Australian state except South Australia and the ACT bans gender self declaration without treatment.
The UK including Scotland isn't a 'progressive' country either on the GRB polling
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
And gender self determination without medical approval and treatment is illegal in every Australian state and territory except South Australia and the ACT
In essence it looks like Westminster is acting as a second chamber to Holyrood, who have overstretched and legislated in areas it's not clear they have the right to, messing with the civil rights of people of trans folk.
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
No it isn't legal in Italy, gay marriage isn't even legal in Italy. Every Australian state except South Australia and the ACT bans gender self declaration without treatment.
The UK including Scotland isn't a 'progressive' country either on the GRB polling
I am actually interested in @Cyclefree 's objections to the Scottish law, which seem to me to be both specific and reasonable. As there are a number of countries with similar legislation to the proposed Scottish one, I would like to know what their experiences are. Are the issues @Cyclefree identified a problem in practice? If not, is that because of some protections in place that might not be present in Scotland?
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
No it isn't legal in Italy, gay marriage isn't even legal in Italy. Every Australian state except South Australia and the ACT bans gender self declaration without treatment.
The UK including Scotland isn't a 'progressive' country either on the GRB polling
I am actually interested in @Cyclefree 's objections to the Scottish law, which seem to me to be both specific and reasonable. As there are a number of countries with similar legislation to the proposed Scottish one, I would like to know what their experiences are. Are the issues @Cyclefree identified a problem in practice? If not, is that because of some protections in place that might not be present in Scotland?
That link makes clear gender change in Italy requires medical treatment, self declaration without involving healthcare professionals is not legal in Italy
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The big problem is that you often end up with one big developer having a near monopoly in development in an *area*.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
The completed sales often finance the materials and construction of the vacant plots. Builders need cash flow as well as sites to build. They do not tie down capital for no purpose.
To pick on Persimmon, they planned to build 15 000 houses last year, and had 89 000 empty plots at their last reported half year results, so about 6 years worth.
Does anyone remember Michael Howard's concession in 2005?...you know the one when he said I almost got em, but I'm too old for another shot.."
Well fuck me with a barge poll sideways. Howard, if fighting this next GE, presents as a veritable spring chicken compared to Biden. We could even wheel out John Major for another shot at the belt. Why not?
Bring back Howard for another "are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Or sling back Major and Patten with a picture of a bomb. They are still younger than Biden and Trump.
Someone of Putin's age would be humanely sidelined at the office..and just think about fucking Murdoch. How many pills must he take to see through a day? He probably wears nappies at night for all I know.
I personally think SKS is too old for this shit.
I'm 55 and my best days are well behind me. What it is about blokes, ageing and feeling relevant?
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The big problem is that you often end up with one big developer having a near monopoly in development in an *area*.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
The completed sales often finance the materials and construction of the vacant plots. Builders need cash flow as well as sites to build. They do not tie down capital for no purpose.
To pick on Persimmon, they planned to build 15 000 houses last year, and had 89 000 empty plots at their last reported half year results, so about 6 years worth.
They sit on land for a number of reasons. One being to sit on land that would cost more to build on - brown field sites as a good example - and so force the councils to release more greenfield sites which are much cheaper to develop.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
And gender self determination without medical approval and treatment is illegal in every Australian state and territory except South Australia and the ACT
So you are saying it is legal in two bits of the country, but not in the others? I don't think that is supporting your argument. I'm not even sure where I stand. I'm merely making the point that the Australian Liberals making it a big issue was a major error. According to the Australian Liberals.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
Which is the risk the UK right take in importing things that sound too American. Because that will put people off. See GB News (or more likely, don't; they reach rather less than 4 % of the UK population over the course of a month.)
Not saying that there aren't massive genuine problems with the ScotGov's approach. But those problems can have "... so how do we minimise and mitigate these problems?" added on the end of them, or "... so this mustn't happen."
What seems to be happening (and on most levels, I'm a spectator in all this) is both sides playing to their own gallery, rather than shuffling into the space where progress might be made. And that seems more dangerous for the Conservatives right now, because they seem very prone to bunker mentality and talking to themselves as it is.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
Which is the risk the UK right take in importing things that sound too American. Because that will put people off. See GB News (or more likely, don't; they reach rather less than 4 % of the UK population over the course of a month.)
Not saying that there aren't massive genuine problems with the ScotGov's approach. But those problems can have "... so how do we minimise and mitigate these problems?" added on the end of them, or "... so this mustn't happen."
What seems to be happening (and on most levels, I'm a spectator in all this) is both sides playing to their own gallery, rather than shuffling into the space where progress might be made. And that seems more dangerous for the Conservatives right now, because they seem very prone to bunker mentality and talking to themselves as it is.
When 2/3 of even SCOTS for goodness sake oppose self determination of gender and the Tories are only polling 25 to 30% this is a huge gift to Sunak
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The big problem is that you often end up with one big developer having a near monopoly in development in an *area*.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
The completed sales often finance the materials and construction of the vacant plots. Builders need cash flow as well as sites to build. They do not tie down capital for no purpose.
To pick on Persimmon, they planned to build 15 000 houses last year, and had 89 000 empty plots at their last reported half year results, so about 6 years worth.
They sit on land for a number of reasons. One being to sit on land that would cost more to build on - brown field sites as a good example - and so force the councils to release more greenfield sites which are much cheaper to develop.
Well quite obviously they want to use their building resources and capital on sites that are easier to sell and make more profit, that's capitalism for you.
Wyoming lawmakers propose ban on electric vehicle sales https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/ A group of GOP Wyoming state lawmakers want to end electric vehicle sales there by 2035, saying the move will help safeguard oil and gas industries. The measure, introduced to the state legislature on Friday, was sponsored by six state legislators, who said in it that electric vehicles will hinder Wyoming’s ability to trade with other states. The bill states that citizens and industries would be encouraged not to purchase electric vehicles before the ban goes into effect. “The proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming’s communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming’s economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce,” the bill reads…
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
And gender self determination without medical approval and treatment is illegal in every Australian state and territory except South Australia and the ACT
So you are saying it is legal in two bits of the country, but not in the others? I don't think that is supporting your argument. I'm not even sure where I stand. I'm merely making the point that the Australian Liberals making it a big issue was a major error. According to the Australian Liberals.
Only because they could not capitalise v the socially conservative, Roman Catholic, blokeish, anti Woke, anti self determination of gender, anti trans in women sports Albanese.
I feel I must applaud those foresightful fellows who apparently saw this S35 situation thundering down the road but have modestly uttered nary a word about it until very recently. Bravo!
An unfortunate leap from reticence to incontinence on the subject, but one can’t have everything.
Are you feeling OK? It's been obviously coming down the tracks since forever. Searching PB is a nightmare but here's HYUFD in December 2022
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
Which is the risk the UK right take in importing things that sound too American. Because that will put people off. See GB News (or more likely, don't; they reach rather less than 4 % of the UK population over the course of a month.)
Not saying that there aren't massive genuine problems with the ScotGov's approach. But those problems can have "... so how do we minimise and mitigate these problems?" added on the end of them, or "... so this mustn't happen."
What seems to be happening (and on most levels, I'm a spectator in all this) is both sides playing to their own gallery, rather than shuffling into the space where progress might be made. And that seems more dangerous for the Conservatives right now, because they seem very prone to bunker mentality and talking to themselves as it is.
When 2/3 of even SCOTS for goodness sake oppose self determination of gender and the Tories are only polling 25 to 30% this is a huge gift to Sunak
I would urge a wee bit of caution on this but it would seem likely he will improve his ratings North of the Border but time will tell
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The big problem is that you often end up with one big developer having a near monopoly in development in an *area*.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
The completed sales often finance the materials and construction of the vacant plots. Builders need cash flow as well as sites to build. They do not tie down capital for no purpose.
To pick on Persimmon, they planned to build 15 000 houses last year, and had 89 000 empty plots at their last reported half year results, so about 6 years worth.
They sit on land for a number of reasons. One being to sit on land that would cost more to build on - brown field sites as a good example - and so force the councils to release more greenfield sites which are much cheaper to develop.
Well quite obviously they want to use their building resources and capital on sites that are easier to sell and make more profit, that's capitalism for you.
So we come back to the point that we should counter that by putting stricter time limits on development or charging council tax on each plot after, say, 18 months or two years. That changes the market dynamics for them and in a way that encourages them to do what they are supposed to be doing which is building houses.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
And gender self determination without medical approval and treatment is illegal in every Australian state and territory except South Australia and the ACT
So you are saying it is legal in two bits of the country, but not in the others? I don't think that is supporting your argument. I'm not even sure where I stand. I'm merely making the point that the Australian Liberals making it a big issue was a major error. According to the Australian Liberals.
Only because they could not capitalise v the socially conservative, Roman Catholic, blokeish, anti Woke, anti self determination of gender, anti trans in women sports Albanese.
Sturgeon and even Starmer are far easier targets
So you are now saying it was an error there, but may not be one here? Whereas I was saying it was an error there and there is at least a possibility it may also be an error here. Which is essentially the same thing from different angles.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Which is rubbish as Albanese made clear he opposed trans people going into women only bathrooms without a sex change, completely neutering the issue.
It didn't because Albanese is a Roman Catholic who dismissed the idea of trans going into womens bathrooms without surgery and dismissed the idea of trans in women sports etc.
Trans activists were almost as appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
You are quoting a random trans activist on twitter. I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Which mentions trans NOWHERE apart from some fanatic candidate in Warringah.
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
I would contend the UK is more like Australia than Virginia.
And gender self determination without medical approval and treatment is illegal in every Australian state and territory except South Australia and the ACT
So you are saying it is legal in two bits of the country, but not in the others? I don't think that is supporting your argument. I'm not even sure where I stand. I'm merely making the point that the Australian Liberals making it a big issue was a major error. According to the Australian Liberals.
Only because they could not capitalise v the socially conservative, Roman Catholic, blokeish, anti Woke, anti self determination of gender, anti trans in women sports Albanese.
Sturgeon and even Starmer are far easier targets
So you are now saying it was an error there, but may not be one here? Whereas I was saying it was an error there and there is at least a possibility it may also be an error here. Which is essentially the same thing from different angles.
It may not even have been an error there given the Coalition got 36% even on first preferences (beating Labor on 32%).
Wyoming lawmakers propose ban on electric vehicle sales https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/ A group of GOP Wyoming state lawmakers want to end electric vehicle sales there by 2035, saying the move will help safeguard oil and gas industries. The measure, introduced to the state legislature on Friday, was sponsored by six state legislators, who said in it that electric vehicles will hinder Wyoming’s ability to trade with other states. The bill states that citizens and industries would be encouraged not to purchase electric vehicles before the ban goes into effect. “The proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming’s communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming’s economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce,” the bill reads…
I feel I must applaud those foresightful fellows who apparently saw this S35 situation thundering down the road but have modestly uttered nary a word about it until very recently. Bravo!
An unfortunate leap from reticence to incontinence on the subject, but one can’t have everything.
Are you feeling OK? It's been obviously coming down the tracks since forever. Searching PB is a nightmare but here's HYUFD in December 2022
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
It's essentially the same reform as in place in several other countries and that Mrs May's government planned to do in 2018. Agree or not, it's not some wild and crazy whim of Nicola Sturgeon’s.
Quite. The UN observer was telling them to get on with the basic reform.
One of us pointed out that the next problem was that sorting out all the consequences required modificastion to equality rights law which remained within Westminster remit, so basically the Scottish Pmt were damned whatever they did if HMG and the Tories wanted to obstruct.
Logically speaking, if the EA needs revision or clarification for a society where people can obtain a GRC differing from their natal sex, doesn't it need that regardless of this reform? Because people can obtain a GRC now, can't they? Just that it's a long and harrowing process.
The purpose of that long and harrowing process is that by the time people have reached the end of it their physical sex is very likely to be in accord with their chosen gender. Which means that they are not a risk or at risk from those of the gender they have chosen. Common sense would suggest that you are right and that there must be ways of reducing the process without losing that protection. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of any attempt at co-operation by either the SG or the UK government in the process to date.
In Scotland itself we have conflicting views in case law. The Inner house, basically the Appeal court, ruled that requiring males who had chosen to be females was incompatible with the EA and undermined the right that women had to form a certain proportion of boards etc. Lady Haldane came to a different view on the basis that biological men who chose to change their gender were in fact women so there was no problem. Personally, I did not find her distinction of the Inner House decision particularly persuasive but that does not necessarily mean that the Inner House decision was right.
If it was right then it is difficult to see how this bill does not exceed the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If Lady Haldane is right then it doesn't because the EA is not affected. I would not be confident about which way this argument would go.
But the reform doesn't introduce a new right of gender transition it just makes it easier. So how can the EA need rewording to address this area because of the reform? If it does need rewording, it did anyway. If it didn't, it still doesn't. The logic of coupling this with the reform looks weak to me.
I have explained this previously on here and don't want to bore people. The UK GRA proceeded on the basis that if it was difficult there was little or no risk so additional safeguards were not required. If it was made easy then safeguards should be in place for the exceptional case. But the Scottish Act contains no safeguards on the basis, apparently, that they are not necessary.
That argument sounds tenuous as justification for the UKG intervention. I'll be surprised if it succeeds. But let's see. IANAL and you are so I won't go all chips in.
Richard_Tyndall said: "At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots."
Interesting. I am not an economist, so I don't know whether there is statistical support for this, but some years ago I came up with this rule of thumb: You are unlikely to have vigorous competition between companies unless there are at least five serious competitors. You won't always get it even then, but as the number of competitors increases, real competition becomes more likely.
And now, learning that you have six big developers makes me ask this question: Do those six developers tend to much stronger in some parts of the UK, and weaker in others, so that, in most places, there are only two or three actually competing?
Without doing a whole treatise on this, it depends on the nature of competition. The number of competitors and market share are beloved by lawyers and the press because they are simple and verifiable, but they mislead as much as they tell you.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
The big problem is that you often end up with one big developer having a near monopoly in development in an *area*.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
The completed sales often finance the materials and construction of the vacant plots. Builders need cash flow as well as sites to build. They do not tie down capital for no purpose.
To pick on Persimmon, they planned to build 15 000 houses last year, and had 89 000 empty plots at their last reported half year results, so about 6 years worth.
They sit on land for a number of reasons. One being to sit on land that would cost more to build on - brown field sites as a good example - and so force the councils to release more greenfield sites which are much cheaper to develop.
Well quite obviously they want to use their building resources and capital on sites that are easier to sell and make more profit, that's capitalism for you.
So we come back to the point that we should counter that by putting stricter time limits on development or charging council tax on each plot after, say, 18 months or two years. That changes the market dynamics for them and in a way that encourages them to do what they are supposed to be doing which is building houses.
Just tax land for which there is planning permission. Until the permitted work is completed.
Does anyone remember Michael Howard's concession in 2005?...you know the one when he said I almost got em, but I'm too old for another shot.."
Well fuck me with a barge poll sideways. Howard, if fighting this next GE, presents as a veritable spring chicken compared to Biden. We could even wheel out John Major for another shot at the belt. Why not?
Bring back Howard for another "are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Or sling back Major and Patten with a picture of a bomb. They are still younger than Biden and Trump.
Someone of Putin's age would be humanely sidelined at the office..and just think about fucking Murdoch. How many pills must he take to see through a day? He probably wears nappies at night for all I know.
I personally think SKS is too old for this shit.
I'm 55 and my best days are well behind me. What it is about blokes, ageing and feeling relevant?
If you’re 55, I think you’re barely old enough to be PM (and you’ve got 15 years over me)
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
No it isn't legal in Italy, gay marriage isn't even legal in Italy. Every Australian state except South Australia and the ACT bans gender self declaration without treatment.
The UK including Scotland isn't a 'progressive' country either on the GRB polling
I am actually interested in @Cyclefree 's objections to the Scottish law, which seem to me to be both specific and reasonable. As there are a number of countries with similar legislation to the proposed Scottish one, I would like to know what their experiences are. Are the issues @Cyclefree identified a problem in practice? If not, is that because of some protections in place that might not be present in Scotland?
Does anyone remember Michael Howard's concession in 2005?...you know the one when he said I almost got em, but I'm too old for another shot.."
Well fuck me with a barge poll sideways. Howard, if fighting this next GE, presents as a veritable spring chicken compared to Biden. We could even wheel out John Major for another shot at the belt. Why not?
Bring back Howard for another "are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Or sling back Major and Patten with a picture of a bomb. They are still younger than Biden and Trump.
Someone of Putin's age would be humanely sidelined at the office..and just think about fucking Murdoch. How many pills must he take to see through a day? He probably wears nappies at night for all I know.
I personally think SKS is too old for this shit.
I'm 55 and my best days are well behind me. What it is about blokes, ageing and feeling relevant?
If you’re 55, I think you’re barely old enough to be PM (and you’ve got 15 years over me)
Gladstone and Churchill were over 80 in their final terms as PM
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
When councils try to impose conditions and criteria such as the provision of infrastructure at certain points in development (eg “before the twentieth house is occupied, x must be provided, before the thirtieth house is occupied, y must be provided”, etc), developers can either:
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman on @LBC just now said that for the UK Government "even to threaten to act is entirely inappropriate" and they would be "playing roughshod with devolution". #GRRBill
She said she couldn't possibly know what sex she was because she had never had her chromosomes tested..
I think everyone's overlooking the obvious. This isn't about transgender rights. That's not something Sturgeon cares about, as far as can be judged. This is about shoring up her political base on one hand, while daring the UK Parliament to overrule her for exceeding her powers so she can claim to be being victimised.
Meanwhile, precisely because she's acting as though she's President of Scotland, Westminster is looking for an excuse to slap her down and remind her she isn't.
The irony that it's over something as tangential as this is probably more apparent than real. If anyone took this subject especially seriously they would have thrashed it out in advance to ensure this didn't happen.
It's essentially the same reform as in place in several other countries and that Mrs May's government planned to do in 2018. Agree or not, it's not some wild and crazy whim of Nicola Sturgeon’s.
Quite. The UN observer was telling them to get on with the basic reform.
One of us pointed out that the next problem was that sorting out all the consequences required modificastion to equality rights law which remained within Westminster remit, so basically the Scottish Pmt were damned whatever they did if HMG and the Tories wanted to obstruct.
You have conveniently forgotten to mention that the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls very publicly told them not to go ahead with the legislation because the impact on women had not been properly considered. She sent a letter to the U.K. government setting out her concerns. The UN observer you mention is not an expert in this area.
The German government which was thinking of bringing in similar legislation has delayed this precisely because of the concerns raised by womens' groups and has stated that these need to be fully considered.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
When councils try to impose conditions and criteria such as the provision of infrastructure at certain points in development (eg “before the twentieth house is occupied, x must be provided, before the thirtieth house is occupied, y must be provided”, etc), developers can either:
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
That's the problem with section 106.
Better for the councils to simply sell planning permission. Raises revenue, and increase the incentive for the builder to build and recoup their costs.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
What's funny about that Wyoming/electric car story is that Wyoming is a great place for wind power. The winds there are so strong, they inspire bad jokes like this one: https://aviationhumor.net/wyoming-wind-sock/
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
When councils try to impose conditions and criteria such as the provision of infrastructure at certain points in development (eg “before the twentieth house is occupied, x must be provided, before the thirtieth house is occupied, y must be provided”, etc), developers can either:
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
That's the problem with section 106.
Better for the councils to simply sell planning permission. Raises revenue, and increase the incentive for the builder to build and recoup their costs.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
I'm not a fan of the legislation myself, but that's a dangerous road to go down. Some organisations would rate the number of full democracies in the world at around 10-15% of nations (flawed democracies would push it higher).
But on the flip side, those making the 'other good/progressive places are doing it' would undoubtedly find something that those places are doing they don't agree with (voter ID, assisted dying, cannabis legalisation etc), so its not much an argument either.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Yep. And 20 years ago none had done it. That's not an unusual trajectory for social reform.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Sill, more countries than have Charlie Sausage Digits as head of state. Which number do you think is going to grow and which shrink over the next few years?
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
When councils try to impose conditions and criteria such as the provision of infrastructure at certain points in development (eg “before the twentieth house is occupied, x must be provided, before the thirtieth house is occupied, y must be provided”, etc), developers can either:
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
Agree with every word and like you I am seeing cases right now involving this. Though the easiest way still is for the developer to make a payment in lieu of any Section 106 commitments which means the council gets immediate cash and the developer loses all liability. Of course the cash never gets spent on what it is supposed to be spent on.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
When councils try to impose conditions and criteria such as the provision of infrastructure at certain points in development (eg “before the twentieth house is occupied, x must be provided, before the thirtieth house is occupied, y must be provided”, etc), developers can either:
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
Yes, I think people underestimate how savvy developers can play the system, even as that system is perpetually trying to overcome NIMBY's blocking things from the other direction. It's such a moving feast, you might by dint of much effort get in things that are needed, but so much of the principle and even detail is agreed by that point that if they seek to amend or challenge those things, well, to a goverment inspector they won't see much harm in waiving it. It's one reason why people fight so hard against conceding the principle, and will do everything they can to try to refight it even when its been lost.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Yep. And 20 years ago none had done it. That's not an unusual trajectory for social reform.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Sill, more countries than have Charlie Sausage Digits as head of state. Which number do you think is going to grow and which shrink over the next few years?
Fewer than the 43 nations which still have a monarch as head of state too
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Sill, more countries than have Charlie Sausage Digits as head of state. Which number do you think is going to grow and which shrink over the next few years?
Does that make a difference? 20% of the world live under the authoritarian chinese regime, and that doesn't mean it is a positive government model. People are tremendous cherry pickers and will point to an increasing number of nations doing X as a sign of why we too should do it, but ignoring an increasing number doing Y as a reason to do the same.
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
Interesting as Sonia Sodha is a leader writer for the Observer
I don't really see why it should be a left/right issue at all. I know our political terminology is pretty lose, but the core ideologies people tend to claim are often more about economic matters, and social issues don't map so neatly onto those ideologies.
Presumably why people add on things like traditional or progressive to try to cover an expected set of social values as well, but it just doesn't fit so well.
Is Sturgeon the only solicitor in Scotland who skipped lectures on ultra vires?
Um no. The government isn't arguing this is "ultra vires" and would no doubt argue it was, if it could. Hence its dodgy use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act. The Gender Recognition Reform Bill is constitutionally bullet proof.
I respectfully disagree. If the GR(S)A does change the meaning and effect of the EA (by changing what that Act means by a "woman" or a "man" then it seeks to amend a reserved matter and is ultra vires. If the UK government accepts that it doesn't they should not, in my view, be using s35.
I think you are supporting my point. UKG would certainly use S29 if it could. ie that this is equalities legislation reserved for Westminster and therefore the Bill is incompetent.
By the way, I think it is perfectly OK to think the Bill is wrong in principle or that it is well intentioned but flawed. Not in doubt is that the Bill passed with wide support across all parties in Scotland after lengthy debate. Also it seems, to me at least, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore legitimate.
Indeed, and as you say 'all parties'. Including support from some Scons MSPs, one of whom has broken ranks to warn HMG(London) not to screw up by interfewring in the Scottish Parliament and HMG (S) in the way that has just been done.
MSP for the West Scotland region Jamie Greene broke from his party to back gender reform in Scotland.
'In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by The Times, he said: “I fear the UK Government’s rumoured moves to block the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill will set us back years. “This move could be a gift to proponents of independence who may accuse us of tearing up the devolution settlement.
“It could be a gift to Labour, as we show to LGBT+ people, their friends and their families, that we are happy to leave the centre ground for others as we fail to live up to our promise to govern with compassion.”'
And [edit] Andrew Tickell, who is usually pretty sensible and neutral and worth reading, has published an article on the matter, remarking for instance of the option of taking the SG to court:
'There is a significant problem with this strategy, however. On the face of it, the Gender Recognition Bill doesn’t relate to reserved matters. It’s true that “equal opportunities” – broadly codified in the Equality Act 2010 – is reserved to Westminster. But the Scotland Act defines equal opportunities as “the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination” based on a range of protected characteristics. GRA reform doesn’t seem to fall within this reservation.
If the UK Government pursues this route, there’s every chance the justices would side with Holyrood and uphold the bill. Delay is inevitable, but not victory.'
Yet the option currently taken is not miuch better.
'[...] as the Secretary of State’s veto is itself subject to judicial review. Using Section 35 to block this bill would be unprecedented, dramatic, and further inflame the tensions which continue to tug at Britain’s territorial constitution – but the UK Government has talked itself into a position where some kind of intervention seems inevitable. [...] Whatever happens, the courtroom calls.'
Bear in mind that the Scot Tories allowed a free vote which 3 of their members took advantage of to vote for the proposal. SNP, Lab and Greens applied the whips despite which a number of SNP MSPs rebelled - effectively ending the ministerial career of one member and scotching the careers of the others. The vote would have been closer had all MSPs been free to follow their consciences. However Sturgeon only does divisive.
Have you allowed for the possibility that parliamentarians might have engaged in a tricky and controversial topic to come to a considered conclusion, which inevitably some people will reasonably disagree with? At the party level only the Conservatives were opposed and even then four refused to vote that way with two abstentions and two voting for? Scotland isn't proposing anything fundamentally different from legislation already in place or in flight in such countries as Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, France
There is also the point that Mr Sunak has completely screwed up, within a very few days, what was shaping up to be a good start in relations with the SG after the mess his predecessors made of it.
I would be surprised if it wasn’t discussed at Sunak and Sturgeon’s recent meeting. I would be very surprised if Sunak didn’t raise the effect on the wider UK, and suggest that a compromise should be reached. I would be extremely surprised if Sturgeon didn’t refuse to compromise, partly for political reasons, partly because she is 100% supportive of the provisions of the bill, and partly because the Greens would remove support from her government if she backed down. I would be flabbergasted if Alister Jack isn’t delighted at the opportunity to issue a Section 35 order, and if he isn’t hoping to issue many, many more.
Might as well have some fun before he loses his seat I guess.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
I'm not a fan of the legislation myself, but that's a dangerous road to go down. Some organisations would rate the number of full democracies in the world at around 10-15% of nations (flawed democracies would push it higher).
But on the flip side, those making the 'other good/progressive places are doing it' would undoubtedly find something that those places are doing they don't agree with (voter ID, assisted dying, cannabis legalisation etc), so its not much an argument either.
The argument is more that several countries have done this without triggering the abuse by fakes and predators that opponents predict will be the consequence. It's not a killer argument - the evidence can be hard to find and measure - but it's relevant to consider. Listening to much of the debate you'd think Sturgeon was out on some outre superwoke limb with this. That's not the case.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
Frank Luntz doesn't have a particularly good track record when it comes to predicting politics.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
Indeed. The *whole point* of devolution is to be able to do things differently.
Within limitations though, hence some things being reserved and an ability to veto. It's clearly not designed as a free for all. Even sovereign US states cannot have things all their own way.
The issue here is the justification for involvement in devolved matters may not stand up.
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
Interesting as Sonia Sodha is a leader writer for the Observer
I don't really see why it should be a left/right issue at all. I know our political terminology is pretty lose, but the core ideologies people tend to claim are often more about economic matters, and social issues don't map so neatly onto those ideologies.
Presumably why people add on things like traditional or progressive to try to cover an expected set of social values as well, but it just doesn't fit so well.
The Conservative/Traditionalist v Social Liberal/Progressive/Woke divide is just as clear as the Socialist/Social Democrat v Conservative/Economic Liberal divide
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
Interesting as Sonia Sodha is a leader writer for the Observer
I don't really see why it should be a left/right issue at all. I know our political terminology is pretty lose, but the core ideologies people tend to claim are often more about economic matters, and social issues don't map so neatly onto those ideologies.
Presumably why people add on things like traditional or progressive to try to cover an expected set of social values as well, but it just doesn't fit so well.
The Conservative v Social Liberal/Progressive' divide is just as clear as the Socialist/Social Democrat v Conservative/Economic Liberal divide
Not from where I'm standing. Plenty of pretty liberal Tories. It might well be the conservative vs social liberal is relatively clear, but conservative doesn't always align to Conservative, nor liberal to Liberal/Labour. So you still end up with a mixture and people nominally on the left or right not agreeing with the majority grouping.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
There was that highly experienced political advisor/psephologist (?) who told the Tories a few days ago that it was very unwise to do so - cruelty to poor Trans people. I can't find the reference, though, unless you can recall it?
It was Frank Luntz. It played badly in the Australian election.
But the report I'm thinking of is much more recent - a few days. I can't find it ...
FWIW I do not think this step should be done in order to win elections. It is unlikely to do so. It should be done because it is the right thing to do.
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
I would be interested to know the experience of several other countries that have had similar legislation for a number of years, including Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland. Most progressive countries have implemented or are in the process of implementing similar legislation.
Well it certainly isn't legal in Australia, the US, Italy, Ireland
Self determination is legal in Ireland, effectively in Italy and in some Australian states. Not the US, but I did say "progressive counties"
About 18 or so countries inc some US states. Agree or disagree, it's not a wacky, off the cuff experiment by the SG.
Out of over 190 countries in the world, so less than 10% have done it
Yep. And 20 years ago none had done it. That's not an unusual trajectory for social reform.
A kind of progressive herd mentality?
Is a conservative herd mentality against reforms inherently better? I'm naturally suspicious of assuming new must equal better, but some rather swift social reform movements have worked out pretty well.
Developers are not sitting on land with planning permission in vast quantities. Getting planning permission is an expensive business (lots of fat fee solicitors) and it generally lapses after 3 years.
I’ve asked to do a planning law seat, so that should be fun.
How much land they are or are not sitting on should be a matter of public record, so show us the evidence.
At the last estimate at the start of last year between the big 6 developers about 600,000 plots.
And the three year rule mentioned by Gallowgate is only valid as long as no work of any material nature is undertaken. So developers will often lay a drop kerb at the entrance to the land or clear some hedging or even, these days, just mark out some temporary benchmarks. All that counts as commencement of works and once that is done the 3 year rule no longer applies and there is no requirement to do any further work at all. Planning permission is then permanent.
It's not as simple as that though. Savvy councils can ensure the most profitable houses are phased last, or that the developer must build infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools, roads or social housing before building anything else.
You're right though, it is my understanding that it is not lawful to have a condition that specifies a development must be built by X date.
Councils can try that but in almost every instance they fail. The problem councils have are myriad;
1. They are forced by Government to meet housing targets under local plans - or rather to meet targets for assigning land for housing.
2. They are faced with developers trying to bank land and also avoid having to comply with section 106 requirements (for the provision of stuff like schools and medical facilities).
3. They are desperately short of cash.
So they can't not give planning permission. That would put them in breach of their legal requirements under the local plans. They can't force the developers to do stuff because once they have given planning permission they lose all hold they have over the developers. And usually the way Section 106 works today is that, instead of the developer having to build facilities, they simply pay the council a lump sum so the council is responsible for the provision instead. The council then spends the money on something else.
When councils try to impose conditions and criteria such as the provision of infrastructure at certain points in development (eg “before the twentieth house is occupied, x must be provided, before the thirtieth house is occupied, y must be provided”, etc), developers can either:
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
That's the problem with section 106.
Better for the councils to simply sell planning permission. Raises revenue, and increase the incentive for the builder to build and recoup their costs.
Everyone seems to think planners and councillors are all on the take anyway, might as make it a straight sale situation.
The Conservatives have nothing to lose by vetoing this bill. It’s unpopular both in Scotland and across the UK.
Nothing to lose but the Union, ultimately. Devolution where a third rate minister can veto properly arrived at legislation of another jurisdiction, on a whim, isn't devolution at all.
You need a popular cause to base the independence argument on.
This is not a popular cause.
It's not really about popular causes. It is about whether you can make a country function. The Conservatives seem to be doing their level best to undermine the Union in recent years.
I get that many Conservatives are actually English nationalists and don't care about the Union, but the UK Government is supposed to be governing the UK. It's in the name...
It is actually the UK government standing up for the two thirds of Scots who oppose the Gender Recognition Bill, not the SNP.
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
Interesting as Sonia Sodha is a leader writer for the Observer
I don't really see why it should be a left/right issue at all. I know our political terminology is pretty lose, but the core ideologies people tend to claim are often more about economic matters, and social issues don't map so neatly onto those ideologies.
Presumably why people add on things like traditional or progressive to try to cover an expected set of social values as well, but it just doesn't fit so well.
The Conservative v Social Liberal/Progressive' divide is just as clear as the Socialist/Social Democrat v Conservative/Economic Liberal divide
Not from where I'm standing. Plenty of pretty liberal Tories. It might well be the conservative vs social liberal is relatively clear, but conservative doesn't always align to Conservative, nor liberal to Liberal/Labour. So you still end up with a mixture and people nominally on the left or right not agreeing with the majority grouping.
Plenty of pretty socially conservative, anti Woke traditional Labour voters too, hence the Redwall.
Comments
I would be very surprised if Sunak didn’t raise the effect on the wider UK, and suggest that a compromise should be reached.
I would be extremely surprised if Sturgeon didn’t refuse to compromise, partly for political reasons, partly because she is 100% supportive of the provisions of the bill, and partly because the Greens would remove support from her government if she backed down.
I would be flabbergasted if Alister Jack isn’t delighted at the opportunity to issue a Section 35 order, and if he isn’t hoping to issue many, many more.
For markets producing identical/non-differentiated products, with identical geographical scope, no barriers to switching, perfect, symmetric information and competing ruthlessly on price, two competitors are enough. But for differentiated products with barriers to swtiching and asymmetric information, having twenty or thirty different offerings is no guarantee of sufficient competition.
Housing I think is far more like the latter than the former.
https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=FbWZohnCNDuAYtI7i9Xpbw&s=19
The GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship on trans in womens' bathrooms in part
Time and the courts will decide if a resolution cannot be found between UK and the Scottish devolved administration
And it is not the Tories who started a culture war on this. It was the Scottish Greens who insisted that this should be an electoral priority. It was the SNP which agreed and pushed it through. And likely did so for entirely cynical reasons. The Bill as drafted leaves people who obtain a GRC under the new provisions in an uncertain legal position in the rest of the U.K. It impacts on the U.K. wide Equality Act, a reserved matter. It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash.
It is also unnecessary because the current GRA - brought in following the Goodwin case in the ECHR - complies fully with the U.K.'s legal obligations under the Convention.
Even Starmer has reservations and concerns about the effect on the Equality Act. And, finally, do not forget the Haldane judgment - for which the Scottish government actively argued - and which highlights precisely the ways in which the GRR Bill affects the Equality Act.
Defending the Equality Act and the rights of women is not a culture war, unless you think that these matters are not worth defending.
Given what we have learnt today about yet another Met police officer, taking seriously the need to protect women and girls from those, whoever they may be, who seek to take advantage of opportunities, loopholes and misplaced beliefs that some preferred groups cannot somehow include predators, should be a priority for all political parties. A real one. Not something that they say every so often for show when some particularly egregious case hits the headlines.
Ultimately the change in the law in Scotland has potential ramifications in rUK and it needs another look.
That’s democracy, not ‘appalling’.
An unfortunate leap from reticence to incontinence on the subject, but one can’t have everything.
In a way this can suit lots of people. The council gets to deal with one big developer. Which is simpler. Sort of.
The developer builds the houses in phases, over time. This means that it’s cheaper for the developer - they can employ a team to build their way round the phases. Rather than a massive work force for a shorter time.
The houses not all coming into the market in a big lump prevents a local house price crash which would be politically problematic. And financially not great for the developer.
Nobody can answer this short of a court ruling, and if we had mature politicians on all sides a compromise would be found but I think that is an expectation unlikely to be realised
Because the Coalition chose to continue banging on about it.
It isn't me saying this. It's the Liberal Party itself.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/20/liberal-party-review-of-election-loss-finds-50-of-candidates-and-new-mps-should-be-women
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/16/uk-inflation-could-fall-rapidly-as-energy-prices-drop-bank-of-england-andrew-bailey
… Answering questions from MPs on the stability of the UK’s financial system, Bailey said a risk premium on UK assets seen in the wake of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget in September was now “pretty much gone”, although cautioned that confidence in the UK remained fragile.
“It’s going to take some time to convince people that we’re back to normal,” he said.
The Bank’s governor confirmed it made a profit of about £3.8bn from selling government bonds bought in the emergency intervention in financial markets used to smooth over the turmoil of the mini-budget. The cash would go to the Treasury, he added…
"It is unconscionable that transpeople and women should be collateral damage caused by the SNP's desire to create a constitutional clash."
If the SNP wanted to create a constitutional clash there are any other number of ways that it could (and indeed has) take. All of which would be more popular with the Yes movement, all of which being much more obvious hills to die on in the cause of independence.
In this case I very much suspect it is the other way round. Whether it's ultimately right or wrong, the SNP wants this for what the legislation achieves, not for the constitutional clash. That may be a secondary benefit in the longer run, but it is not the primary goal of getting the legislation through.
Trans activists were almost as
appalled by Albo as Morrison but Albo's hard anti Woke line on it got Labor over the line in blue-collar seats
https://twitter.com/amy_sargeant_/status/1506836012970164225?t=FbWZohnCNDuAYtI7i9Xpbw&s=19
I am quoting from the official Liberal Party inquiry into the causes of their defeat.
Is there anything to suggest widespread popularity in Scotland for the bill?
If Albanese hadn't taken an anti gender recognition line he would not have won the blue-collar seats from the Coalition he did not the narrow majority he did.
As I also pointed out and you ignored the GOP won the 2021 Virginia governorship in part on an anti trans in womens' bathrooms, anti Woke agenda
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4260846#Comment_4260846
"90% of Scottish Conservative MSPs voted against the gender recognition Bill and Alistair Jack is seeking to reverse it from Westminster too."
It is a massively successful scheme and has seen whole towns and suburbs built in this way.
This is an example I have mentioned on here before:
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/dec/15/almere-dutch-city-alternative-housing-custom-build
The UK including Scotland isn't a 'progressive' country either on the GRB polling
In blocking the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, Rishi Sunak has simultaneously made a statement of "thus far and no further" for devolution and for transgender rights. Which defines him as a more conservative Conservative than is perhaps his public...
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1615094198591696897
Not quite right. This isn’t a right-left issue. There are many on the left who oppose the Scottish government’s gender self-ID reforms on the basis they impact negatively on the rights of women and girls that are protected by the Equality Act 2010.
Also, research shows that the average member of the public is moderately gender critical and believes biological sex remains materially relevant eg to female-only sports, services and spaces - so Sunak certainly isn’t out of step with the public on this
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1615107396950532115
I am actually interested in @Cyclefree 's objections to the Scottish law, which seem to me to be both specific and reasonable. As there are a number of countries with similar legislation to the proposed Scottish one, I would like to know what their experiences are. Are the issues @Cyclefree identified a problem in practice? If not, is that because of some protections in place that might not be present in Scotland?
To pick on Persimmon, they planned to build 15 000 houses last year, and had 89 000 empty plots at their last reported half year results, so about 6 years worth.
Well fuck me with a barge poll sideways. Howard, if fighting this next GE, presents as a veritable spring chicken compared to Biden. We could even wheel out John Major for another shot at the belt. Why not?
Bring back Howard for another "are you thinking what I'm thinking?" Or sling back Major and Patten with a picture of a bomb. They are still younger than Biden and Trump.
Someone of Putin's age would be humanely sidelined at the office..and just think about fucking Murdoch. How many pills must he take to see through a day? He probably wears nappies at night for all I know.
I personally think SKS is too old for this shit.
I'm 55 and my best days are well behind me. What it is about blokes, ageing and feeling relevant?
I don't think that is supporting your argument.
I'm not even sure where I stand.
I'm merely making the point that the Australian Liberals making it a big issue was a major error.
According to the Australian Liberals.
Not saying that there aren't massive genuine problems with the ScotGov's approach. But those problems can have "... so how do we minimise and mitigate these problems?" added on the end of them, or "... so this mustn't happen."
What seems to be happening (and on most levels, I'm a spectator in all this) is both sides playing to their own gallery, rather than shuffling into the space where progress might be made. And that seems more dangerous for the Conservatives right now, because they seem very prone to bunker mentality and talking to themselves as it is.
Wyoming lawmakers propose ban on electric vehicle sales
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/
A group of GOP Wyoming state lawmakers want to end electric vehicle sales there by 2035, saying the move will help safeguard oil and gas industries.
The measure, introduced to the state legislature on Friday, was sponsored by six state legislators, who said in it that electric vehicles will hinder Wyoming’s ability to trade with other states. The bill states that citizens and industries would be encouraged not to purchase electric vehicles before the ban goes into effect.
“The proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming’s communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming’s economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce,” the bill reads…
Sturgeon and even Starmer are far easier targets
It is a very controversial issue
Whereas I was saying it was an error there and there is at least a possibility it may also be an error here.
Which is essentially the same thing from different angles.
Sunak would kill for 36% now
1 - Make an application to have that removed. If rejected, remember that they have QCs on the payroll and you have underpaid local government employees. Going to appeal is often a sound tactic for the developer, especially as the Inspector has a habit of awarding costs against Councils when they lose.
2 - Ignore it until pulled up on it. You have, say, two enforcement officers in the whole council, and a thousand open cases. You also have to take every opportunity to allow the developer to set it right prior to taking enforcement action. This involves discussing it with them, then they make an application for permission to rectify it, you assess it and find it does sod all, send it back, and now another four months have passed. Rinse and repeat several times and two years have passed. If you attempt legal action before showing all routes have been exhausted, you will lose. If you wait too long, legal action is no longer permitted.
Remember, you have a couple of officers on this District-wide for something like a thousand cases of varying degrees (you can’t afford more).
In addition, the developer will rely on despair setting in and you giving up.
(Again, I’ve got specific extant cases in mind while discussing this).
The German government which was thinking of bringing in similar legislation has delayed this precisely because of the concerns raised by womens' groups and has stated that these need to be fully considered.
Better for the councils to simply sell planning permission. Raises revenue, and increase the incentive for the builder to build and recoup their costs.
https://aviationhumor.net/wyoming-wind-sock/
But on the flip side, those making the 'other good/progressive places are doing it' would undoubtedly find something that those places are doing they don't agree with (voter ID, assisted dying, cannabis legalisation etc), so its not much an argument either.
Which number do you think is going to grow and which shrink over the next few years?
I'm not persuaded it is reasonable (or, rather, appropriate), but not everything legitimate will be so.
Presumably why people add on things like traditional or progressive to try to cover an expected set of social values as well, but it just doesn't fit so well.
The issue here is the justification for involvement in devolved matters may not stand up.