Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Polynesia is inevitably but slowly heading for Indy I think. New Caledonia came close two years ago (saved by covid) and might try again
I think french territories elsewhere are probably safe for now as either too reliant on the French state or lacking local cultural identity
Martinique is one of the most miserable places in the Caribbean however. The locals resent the French intensely yet haven’t got the guts to cut the cord. Leads to sullen self hatred
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
Plenty of us have to comply with these rules because they are the rules that are in place. Why should the Prime Minister be held to a lower standard than say Charlotte Hogg?
Do you personally have to comply with these rules?
And where have I said that the PM has to be held to a lower standard?
And for anyone who thinks the rules over declarations are 'easy', remember Starmer and many others have got in trouble over the gift declartions in the past, over multiple breaches:
This is not a dig at Starmer: Mat Hancock and Jess Phillips are amongst several people under investigation for suspected breaches of various declaration rules; and Phillips has been reprimanded before.
So unless you think all of these people, from many parties, are crooks or fools (*), then it might suggest that there's some difficulty in the registration process and what needs registering.
(*) Which might be reasonable
I have to adhere to the various requirements my employer has, which are in place so they can show compliance with regulatory, legal and stock market requirements.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
Maybe a better place to start is to go back and look at the models which are driving the projected demand for housing to see whether they are accurate or not, and / or reflect trends. Not only just population trends but also on preferences for living in the countryside or cities etc etc.
There seems to be an assumption with the whole debate that the numbers are correct on trends, now it's all about how we solve the issues those numbers bring about. But what about if the numbers are wrong?
On topic, if I was the Republicans, my slogan for this campaign would be "Vote Biden, Get Harris".
Also, I see Trump has now switched the "Crooked" moniker to "Crooked Joe Biden". There's talk Hunter B may do a plea deal on a few charges which may be the smart deal to do now but there's a question as to where that then leads.
Not bad but trumped with Vote Trump, Get Trump.
Well, yes, but that will be the slogan anyway.
However, both Trump and RDS generally beat Harris in head to head polling so I'm not sure that slogan is that effective if a large chunk of the voting electorate is persuaded that a vote for Biden is really a vote for Harris.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Interesting question for AUKUS as well. Having an independent small nation close to Australia and possibly prone to Chinese influence is not optimal
China is driving much of this Indy sentiment. They are dangling fat carrots in front of the local politicians. “Get rid of the french and China will build enormous new ports and airports etc”
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
We’d talking about what companies Sunak’s wife owns shares in. This is hardly deeply personal information.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
Plenty of us have to comply with these rules because they are the rules that are in place. Why should the Prime Minister be held to a lower standard than say Charlotte Hogg?
Do you personally have to comply with these rules?
And where have I said that the PM has to be held to a lower standard?
And for anyone who thinks the rules over declarations are 'easy', remember Starmer and many others have got in trouble over the gift declartions in the past, over multiple breaches:
This is not a dig at Starmer: Mat Hancock and Jess Phillips are amongst several people under investigation for suspected breaches of various declaration rules; and Phillips has been reprimanded before.
So unless you think all of these people, from many parties, are crooks or fools (*), then it might suggest that there's some difficulty in the registration process and what needs registering.
(*) Which might be reasonable
Multiple breeches for Starmer that are in the words of the investigation: “I found that, based on the information available to me, the breaches were minor and/or inadvertent, and that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead." These include football tickets declared a day late etc.
If that is the best that the Tories can muster, then I think Starmer fairly impeccable in terms of personal integrity compared to the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet.
It's his policies that I don't like, rather than his character.
Firstly, I am not a Tory. I think you'd have realised that by now...
Secondly: Sunak has not been found guilty of anything yet; words of the investigation cannot be quoted because no investigation has been completed - though much wrong-doing has been implied by some on here. If Sunak is cleared, I hope that people would apologise to him and his wife.
In a similar manner, if he is shown to be the worst transgressor since Judas then I'll say I was wrong (though I think my point about the rules is valid). If the investigation uses similar words to those you use to excuse Starmer, again, I think the people who accuse him of stuff like 'grifting' would apologise.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
I think there's a real risk that Trump could edge this race.
I hope not, I've laid him to the bone.
My view is that the (current) age of populism has peaked and Democrats/Independents at large are now too wise to his potential path to allow him through again.
My reasoning is that the US is so polarised that the Democrats could nominate Al Sharpton and the Republicans Joe Arpaio, and each one would be assured of 45% of the vote.
The good results for the Democrats in 2022 should be compared to the good Republican results, down-ballot, in 2020. Unlike most incoming Presidents, Biden had no coat-tails. That points to an electorate that just isn’t interested in how good or bad the candidates are. They just vote for their own sons of bitches.
That leaves little margin of error. I’d only make Biden a slight favourite to beat Trump.
My feelings are very similar.
Had a wonderful time the other night chatting to an American tourist over a decent Scotch. He was telling me all about the influence of Dispensational premillennialism on American politics. It did explain a lot....
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Interesting question for AUKUS as well. Having an independent small nation close to Australia and possibly prone to Chinese influence is not optimal
China is driving much of this Indy sentiment. They are dangling fat carrots in front of the local politicians. “Get rid of the french and China will build enormous new ports and airports etc”
It will work to an extent
Precisely so. And, once they have them in their grip, the political demands will start together with chilling threats.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Did my second longest walk yesterday, just over 29 miles, sort of by accident. I booked a place that I thought was 24 miles from Lorient, but it was 5 miles beyond the nearest town which I’d used as the reference point
Those last five miles were pretty tough and I didn’t arrive until after nine o’clock, but it was worth the extra effort. Firstly, most of the extra walk was in the exact direction I wanted to go today (so only have twenty miles to walk today). Second, the place I’d booked was beautiful; an annexe to a farmhouse deep in the middle of nowhere, with sheep, geese, hens and a cockerel in the garden
I had a very good sleep and I’m now on way to Quimper, the next stop on the pilgrimage. I’ve just reached quarter of the way there, which means I’ve now walked just over 200 miles in eight days and two and a half hours
I’m celebrating that landmark with a beer!
This holiday must be costing you a fortune in trainers.
You don't wear trainers for serious long-distance walking.
How much of a townie are you?
I’m a working class guy from the desolate North.
There’s a whole genre of stories of rescuing “walkers” in jeans and trainers in the remoter bits of the U.K.
Hell, I went for a long weekend break in the *Cotswolds* and rescued (sort of) some idiots who thought that flip flops are marching gear.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Her mistake was not being senior enough.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.
So cynical. But seen too often at upper levels too dismiss.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
Except as noted even councillors have to declare spousal interests. Its something MPs recognised could be very relevant. Kids interests are not required, though many would need to declare though not register such a thing, and with close friends.
Yes, partners should be off limits in the sense they are not involved in general political matters. But there are very good reasons the interests of a partner can be relevant, as the PMs case shows - it's a small thing, but needs to be known so no question of impropriety. It's not possible to assume any interests of a spouse are of no consequence.
Thats why a harder line is taken. They still have plenty of privacy, but top political figures have always had family in the public eye to some degree.
I'm not denying any of that. But imagine my adult son buys a small but financially large share in company X. I, as a very important politician (*), make a decision that benefits the sector that company X works in.
Then imagine if my son is estranged from me. I have no way of knowing what interests he has, and yet he could gain from my decision. Yet political opponents would use it against me.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Pride has no price.
It's basically a choice between living in a first world nation or a third world kleptocracy. It's surprising how many would prefer the latter.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Polynesia is inevitably but slowly heading for Indy I think. New Caledonia came close two years ago (saved by covid) and might try again
I think french territories elsewhere are probably safe for now as either too reliant on the French state or lacking local cultural identity
Martinique is one of the most miserable places in the Caribbean however. The locals resent the French intensely yet haven’t got the guts to cut the cord. Leads to sullen self hatred
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Actually the Manchester-Leeds axis is perhaps more promising. Somewhere near Halifax.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Yes and no. Some French colonies could not survive without massive subsidy from Paris. But Polynesia has a huge tourist industry and might well thrive (especially with more Chinese investment). Likewise New Caledonia has huge nickel reserves (most of which go to China) and again could easily be prosperous without Paris
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
We’d talking about what companies Sunak’s wife owns shares in. This is hardly deeply personal information.
Yes, any politician trying that line would be distracting.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Use local stone for facing. Stone is now a cheap material - even granite. Watching the disc saws slicing it like bread is fascinating.
Build market town type environments - mixed (but not too mixed) designs. Terraced houses, with shops, cafes etc forming loci at various points, with a larger shopping/entertainment area also included.
Good access for deliveries to reduce car usage - coal lanes?
Build in dedicated bus roads and cycle lanes , with complete segregation of use.
The main square needs to be decorated with a concrete brutalist cube - all the advocates of brutalist architecture go underneath that.
As to new towns in general I'd be curious to know how much more urbanised south-eastern England is now compared to the 1940s.
Is there even enough room to fit in a new town as opposed to massively increasing the size of present small towns ?
In any case a new town would have about 100k inhabitants - would that even have a noticeable effect on southern England's housing issues ?
That’s why they need to be much bigger. New cities, potentially stapled on to existing towns. MK is one option, plenty of space and it could be heavily densified. Daventry/Rugby another.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Yes and no. Some French colonies could not survive without massive subsidy from Paris. But Polynesia has a huge tourist industry and might well thrive (especially with more Chinese investment). Likewise New Caledonia has huge nickel reserves (most of which go to China) and again could easily be prosperous without Paris
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
It it's a choice between being a part of France and a Chinese colony, again, that's a choice that should make itself. Independent of France, these places would simply become another Zimbabwe.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Pride has no price.
It's basically a choice between living in a first world nation or a third world kleptocracy. It's surprising how many would prefer the latter.
Mauritius is not a third world kleptocracy. Nor is Singapore. Nor is Brunei
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Yes and no. Some French colonies could not survive without massive subsidy from Paris. But Polynesia has a huge tourist industry and might well thrive (especially with more Chinese investment). Likewise New Caledonia has huge nickel reserves (most of which go to China) and again could easily be prosperous without Paris
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
It it's a choice between being a part of France and a Chinese colony, again, that's a choice that should make itself. Independent of France, these places would simply become another Zimbabwe.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Pride has no price.
It's basically a choice between living in a first world nation or a third world kleptocracy. It's surprising how many would prefer the latter.
Mauritius is not a third world kleptocracy. Nor is Singapore. Nor is Brunei
Two of those made very good choices to exploit their geographical advantages and become regional hubs for business. Mauritius’ achievement in some ways is more impressive than Singapore as it’s not so obviously geographically blessed.
A bit trickier in the South Pacific as there’s nothing to be a hub for. Tourism is really the only option.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Yes and no. Some French colonies could not survive without massive subsidy from Paris. But Polynesia has a huge tourist industry and might well thrive (especially with more Chinese investment). Likewise New Caledonia has huge nickel reserves (most of which go to China) and again could easily be prosperous without Paris
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
It it's a choice between being a part of France and a Chinese colony, again, that's a choice that should make itself. Independent of France, these places would simply become another Zimbabwe.
This is specious nonsense
You'd really expect honest, competent, government, in such places, following independence from France?
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
"One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, "
Interestingly, the East-West Rail project may see a new station being built on the ECML at Tempsford ("St Neots South"). There were also plans/options for a new town of 7,000 homes on the old Tempsford airfield, and other plans for large settlements in the area. Very large, if you listen to some of the excited whispers.
It won't happen, of course, because it might indicate a joined-up housing/transport policy...
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Actually the Manchester-Leeds axis is perhaps more promising. Somewhere near Halifax.
A problem being that Halifax is already there.
Unless you want to build on the moors you're not going to fit a new city in between Leeds and Manchester.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
I don’t know the precise details of the rules, but I suspect they weren’t set up for situations like this. She* has disclosed her interest in Catamaran Ventures. Does it say in the rules that she needs to disclose every investment made by Catamaran?
It will say that she needs to avoid any conflicts of interest - but we don’t know that she has any involvement in Study Hall. It may have been wise to set Catamaran up as a blind trust (although we don’t know to what extent she is personally involved - I suspect not much in the day to day although she is a director).
Moreover the scheme in question is a standard one available to all early stage companies in the UK. There is no evidence it was improperly given, that there was any lobbying or that the people handling the grant even knew she was an investor (catamaran would have been disclosed but they may not have looked into it).
So we have:
- disclosure of the direct investment - no evidence that there is a conflict - No evidence of improper behaviour
So all we are left with is the Caesar’s wife argument. Which is pretty feeble.
But it might be wise, going forward, to disclose (say every quarter) a list of Catamaran’s investments whether it is required or not.
* I’m using “she” because it’s Rishi’s wife but feel free to read as Rishi instead.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Yes and no. Some French colonies could not survive without massive subsidy from Paris. But Polynesia has a huge tourist industry and might well thrive (especially with more Chinese investment). Likewise New Caledonia has huge nickel reserves (most of which go to China) and again could easily be prosperous without Paris
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
It it's a choice between being a part of France and a Chinese colony, again, that's a choice that should make itself. Independent of France, these places would simply become another Zimbabwe.
This is specious nonsense
You'd really expect honest, competent, government, in such places, following independence from France?
Well they probably wouldn’t vote for Le Pen
New Caledonia’s GDP per capita is $37,000. All from those huge nickel reserves. They can easily afford independence and they’d be free of the french. I suspect it will happen sooner or later
Polynesia is $21,000. Not massive but enough to think: let’s give it a go. Their tourist potential is intense
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Use local stone for facing. Stone is now a cheap material - even granite. Watching the disc saws slicing it like bread is fascinating.
Build market town type environments - mixed (but not too mixed) designs. Terraced houses, with shops, cafes etc forming loci at various points, with a larger shopping/entertainment area also included.
Good access for deliveries to reduce car usage - coal lanes?
Build in dedicated bus roads and cycle lanes , with complete segregation of use.
The main square needs to be decorated with a concrete brutalist cube - all the advocates of brutalist architecture go underneath that.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Actually the Manchester-Leeds axis is perhaps more promising. Somewhere near Halifax.
A problem being that Halifax is already there.
Unless you want to build on the moors you're not going to fit a new city in between Leeds and Manchester.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Her mistake was not being senior enough.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.
So cynical. But seen too often at upper levels too dismiss.
A friend worked as an NHS psychiatrist.
After a while she noticed a pattern - she would be given such cases - A mover and shaker in the world of government (in the sense of organising our world) - NGO, Civil Service, Police, local government. Facing criminal charges of one sort or another. No national level politicians, but that might just have been luck of the drawer.
The strong er…. advice from her hierarchy was that they were to be found to need head shrinking/drying out at a suitably nice establishment, rather than being found fit to plead.
In a number of cases she found that they had no medical reason not to go to trial.
This always sparked a “review” of her work. And advice from The Top to be more of A Team Player.
She kept getting the work because of the shortage of doctors. Otherwise someone more pliable would have been found.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Interesting question for AUKUS as well. Having an independent small nation close to Australia and possibly prone to Chinese influence is not optimal
The Chinese are going balls deep, economically and militarily, in PNG and that's only 4km from Australia. I'd say that's a more pressing concern.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
Plenty of us have to comply with these rules because they are the rules that are in place. Why should the Prime Minister be held to a lower standard than say Charlotte Hogg?
Charlotte Hogg was shafted by her boss. She had asked him whether her brother’s role at Barclays needed to be disclosed (he was comparatively junior - an investment banking director, so the sort of title a 30 year old would have) and he said no.
Start-up backed by Rishi Sunak’s wife Akshata Murty given government grant
The prime minister’s wife is a shareholder in a company that was awarded almost £350,000 of taxpayers’ money as part of a scheme to support entrepreneurs.
Records at Companies House show that Catamaran Ventures UK Ltd, the investment company controlled by Akshata Murty, has a stake in Study Hall, an education technology start-up.
Last year the business received a government grant of £349,976 through Innovate UK, the arm’s-length body that provides money and support to companies developing new products or services.
Murty’s shareholding in a firm that has been the direct beneficiary of government funding raises fresh questions about her business dealings and the potential for a perceived conflict of interest.
Study Hall, which aims to harness the power of artificial intelligence (AI) in schools, was founded by Sofia Fenichell, a tech entrepreneur. Her previous venture Mrs Wordsmith, another education start-up dedicated to promoting children’s literacy, collapsed in 2021 just six months after receiving state support.
Mrs Wordsmith was given £650,000 of taxpayers’ money as a loan through the government’s Future Fund,
I know, Sunak is even more sleazier than Boris Johnson.
It's strange, isn't it. After all, Boris had need of the money, a louche lifestyle will do that to a chap. But Rishi is already insanely wealthy.
If I (the mere son of a long-standing local councillor) know the importance of the "what would your behaviour look like on the front page of the paper" test, how come so many Conservative MPs don't?
Except she owns about 2% of the company, one of about 10 minor shareholders with the founder owning 80%. I double she has any involvement in the company whatsoever - it looks like a classic friends and family round.
Are you really saying that Study Hall shouldn’t access schemes that are available to any company?
With allegations of this seriousness it’s disgraceful to make this kind of attack without a shred of evidence.
Any close associate of the PM needs to be squeaky clean and to declare even the slightest conflict of interest if the sleaze and bungs to mates of the Johnson era is to be consigned to history.
Are you saying she isn't 'squeaky clean' ?
I wonder what you were saying about Cherie Blair and her friendship with fraudster Peter Foster back in the day? I also look forward to Starmer's wife getting the same attention so we can all check that she's 'squeaky clean'.
Are there any examples of failures to declare conflicts of interest concerning Starmer’s wife?
I've no idea. But the point is this: if Sunak's wife is to be put under this much examination, then so should Starmer's. What are her financials?
As I said above; Cherie Blair shows that the wife of a Labour MP can be involved with some fairly dodgy people. If you want sunlight on Sunak's wife, then it would seem odd that you would not want such light on Starmer's wife.
Sometimes all Labour has is smears. especially after such rich ground as they had with Johnson., who really was dodgy
Even local councillors are required to declare interests of spouses/partners, its rather bizarre MPs, who set those rules, always seem so stunned that, yes, a conflict involving their partner might still be relevant.
All MPs just list your interests properly, it is not the onerous burden you act like it is.
I'm unsure that I've commented on that process.
As it happens, it wouldn't be very onerous for me, as our interests are fairly lightweight. I can imagine if you had more complex affairs - as people with lots of money often do - it could well be much more complex and onerous.
And then there's the problems of allowing people to keep some privacy on their affairs as well.
If people are rich enough to have onerous declaratory needs they are rich enough to pay someone to be organised about it so they themselves can make those declarations.
The privacy thing is a red herring. The whole point of the declarations is that people in their position should be open and transparent about otherwise private affairs due to the nature of their power and position. They still have plenty of privacy, as do you even if people have to see what land you hold an interest in within the area of your authority. Even for councillors there are carve outs to withhold for sake of safety.
There are rules about what needs declaring and what does not, and no doubt the line between can be argued about, but so long as some declarations are required some privacy is given up. That some people have more interests that have the potential to compromise them than others is not a reason to reduce the level, and nor is privacy - knowing the life partner of a minister has investments which are relevant to government work is not information which should be private.
It's a fallacy if they argue they shouldn't need to do X because they need some privacy. They still have some. They are just voluntarily in a job where they have some restrictions.
The privacy point is important for several reasons - one being that we're not talking about an individual here, we're talking about an individual's spouse. And possibly their kids and any good friends as well. Anyone that has interests that might gain the individual an advantage.
IMO that's a difficult balance.
Except as noted even councillors have to declare spousal interests. Its something MPs recognised could be very relevant. Kids interests are not required, though many would need to declare though not register such a thing, and with close friends.
Yes, partners should be off limits in the sense they are not involved in general political matters. But there are very good reasons the interests of a partner can be relevant, as the PMs case shows - it's a small thing, but needs to be known so no question of impropriety. It's not possible to assume any interests of a spouse are of no consequence.
Thats why a harder line is taken. They still have plenty of privacy, but top political figures have always had family in the public eye to some degree.
I'm not denying any of that. But imagine my adult son buys a small but financially large share in company X. I, as a very important politician (*), make a decision that benefits the sector that company X works in.
Then imagine if my son is estranged from me. I have no way of knowing what interests he has, and yet he could gain from my decision. Yet political opponents would use it against me.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Pride has no price.
It's basically a choice between living in a first world nation or a third world kleptocracy. It's surprising how many would prefer the latter.
Mauritius is not a third world kleptocracy. Nor is Singapore. Nor is Brunei
Former French colonies don't seem to have had a good record though.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Our arguments rage over tiny amounts of GDP per head.
This seems rather more fundamental to me. And if it's a case of exchanging French sovereignty for Chinese sovereignty, I'd prefer the former.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Actually the Manchester-Leeds axis is perhaps more promising. Somewhere near Halifax.
A problem being that Halifax is already there.
Unless you want to build on the moors you're not going to fit a new city in between Leeds and Manchester.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Her mistake was not being senior enough.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.
So cynical. But seen too often at upper levels too dismiss.
A friend worked as an NHS psychiatrist.
After a while she noticed a pattern - she would be given such cases - A mover and shaker in the world of government (in the sense of organising our world) - NGO, Civil Service, Police, local government. Facing criminal charges of one sort or another. No national level politicians, but that might just have been luck of the drawer.
The strong er…. advice from her hierarchy was that they were to be found to need head shrinking/drying out at a suitably nice establishment, rather than being found fit to plead.
In a number of cases she found that they had no medical reason not to go to trial.
This always sparked a “review” of her work. And advice from The Top to be more of A Team Player.
She kept getting the work because of the shortage of doctors. Otherwise someone more pliable would have been found.
I may be out of date, but is fitness to plead still decided by a jury?
Rishi needs to sort out his conflicts of interest declarations. I doubt anyone thinks there is active corruption, but it’s starting to look sloppy, complacent and out of touch.
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
I think building a new City in North Lincolnshire is the way forward.
Yep. Something I have advocated before. Although usually I suggest southern Lincolnshire. But your suggestion - say around Grimsby/Scunthorpe with good access to the Humber estuary makes very good sense.
That said I also agree withGardenwalker on increasing the population density of existing cities. Build up not out.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Our arguments rage over tiny amounts of GDP per head.
This seems rather more fundamental to me. And if it's a case of exchanging French sovereignty for Chinese sovereignty, I'd prefer the former.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Our arguments rage over tiny amounts of GDP per head.
This seems rather more fundamental to me. And if it's a case of exchanging French sovereignty for Chinese sovereignty, I'd prefer the former.
One may be less obvious than the other, at least to start.
I think there's a real risk that Trump could edge this race.
I hope not, I've laid him to the bone.
My view is that the (current) age of populism has peaked and Democrats/Independents at large are now too wise to his potential path to allow him through again.
I am convinced that Trump is too toxic with independents now to win. The legal troubles will also serve as a constant drip-drip all the way through the next 18 months.
I think the GOP base are mad enough to nominate him, I think they’re screwed for the general election if they do, however.
Agreed. Of course he has some sort of chance if he's on the ballot - so I'd rather he wasn't - but for me he's a pretty safe lay for the WH. I'm seriously short and not losing sleep over it. The political fundamentals are very favourable for the Dems imo because the GOP hasn't detrumpified. They can pick him and lose. Or not pick him and trigger the wrath of him and his depressingly large cult - and lose. They're screwed for this one. What a shame. If only they'd had some backbone instead of the craven calculation and pandering.
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
I think building a new City in North Lincolnshire is the way forward.
Yep. Something I have advocated before. Although usually I suggest southern Lincolnshire. But your suggestion - say around Grimsby/Scunthorpe with good access to the Humber estuary makes very good sense.
That said I also agree withGardenwalker on increasing the population density of existing cities. Build up not out.
You could expand Hull to the south bank of the estuary and extend the M180 to it.
Did my second longest walk yesterday, just over 29 miles, sort of by accident. I booked a place that I thought was 24 miles from Lorient, but it was 5 miles beyond the nearest town which I’d used as the reference point
Those last five miles were pretty tough and I didn’t arrive until after nine o’clock, but it was worth the extra effort. Firstly, most of the extra walk was in the exact direction I wanted to go today (so only have twenty miles to walk today). Second, the place I’d booked was beautiful; an annexe to a farmhouse deep in the middle of nowhere, with sheep, geese, hens and a cockerel in the garden
I had a very good sleep and I’m now on way to Quimper, the next stop on the pilgrimage. I’ve just reached quarter of the way there, which means I’ve now walked just over 200 miles in eight days and two and a half hours
I’m celebrating that landmark with a beer!
This holiday must be costing you a fortune in trainers.
I’m hoping that my brand new Scarpa walking shoes will last a bit longer than trainers would!
Scarpa is a brilliant brand. Worth the ££
Seconded. I hiked yesterday up Kinder Scout for our annual departmental spring hike, up Jacobs ladder, and across the rather boggy plateau and back to Edale in mine. Feet dry and not footsore at all. Best hiking boots that I have had are the these Scarpa Mistral GTX.
SLs for the Scottish winter, Vortex for the Scottish everything else.
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
I think building a new City in North Lincolnshire is the way forward.
Yep. Something I have advocated before. Although usually I suggest southern Lincolnshire. But your suggestion - say around Grimsby/Scunthorpe with good access to the Humber estuary makes very good sense.
That said I also agree withGardenwalker on increasing the population density of existing cities. Build up not out.
You could expand Hull to the south bank of the estuary and extend the M180 to it.
Again, nobody wants to go to Hull, so what is the point of expanding it?
House prices are already cheap, and wages are low. According to Tory dogma, investment should be flooding in.
I'm no expert on US politics, but I listen to Americast on R4 every week. This week they had an interesting interview with Jim Messina. He reckons that the Republicans are bonkers, because if they went for Nikki Haley, Biden would be toast - but of course they won't. Made sense to me, unlike their addiction to Trump.
Need to look at household disposable income for a better view.
I know people that have been to Liechtenstein. It is by all accounts jnsanely prosperous (like next door Switzerland but even more so). It’s not all an illusion
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
Build and they will come. They said the same about Dubai.
Is Halifax sitting on an enormous amount of oil wealth? I think not.
Nor was Dubai, unlike its neighbour Abu Dhabi
EDIT: I see this has already been covered. And we can subsidise new cities with our very significant tax base until they are self sustaining. Besides which we would not be building on empty desert.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Yes and no. Some French colonies could not survive without massive subsidy from Paris. But Polynesia has a huge tourist industry and might well thrive (especially with more Chinese investment). Likewise New Caledonia has huge nickel reserves (most of which go to China) and again could easily be prosperous without Paris
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
It it's a choice between being a part of France and a Chinese colony, again, that's a choice that should make itself. Independent of France, these places would simply become another Zimbabwe.
And that's where familiarity and contempt for the hand that feeds can lead to terrible choices.
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
I think building a new City in North Lincolnshire is the way forward.
Yep. Something I have advocated before. Although usually I suggest southern Lincolnshire. But your suggestion - say around Grimsby/Scunthorpe with good access to the Humber estuary makes very good sense.
That said I also agree withGardenwalker on increasing the population density of existing cities. Build up not out.
Trouble is that most Britons want a semi-detached or detached.
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
Build and they will come. They said the same about Dubai.
Is Halifax sitting on an enormous amount of oil wealth? I think not.
Nor was Dubai, unlike its neighbour Abu Dhabi
EDIT: I see this has already been covered. And we can subsidise new cities with our very significant tax base until they are self sustaining. Besides which we would not be building on empty desert.
The question remains, how and why would such a city be “self-sustaining”?
Nowhere else in the North is, the entire country outside the SE (and part of Scotland) subsists on subsidy.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Her mistake was not being senior enough.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.
So cynical. But seen too often at upper levels too dismiss.
A friend worked as an NHS psychiatrist.
After a while she noticed a pattern - she would be given such cases - A mover and shaker in the world of government (in the sense of organising our world) - NGO, Civil Service, Police, local government. Facing criminal charges of one sort or another. No national level politicians, but that might just have been luck of the drawer.
The strong er…. advice from her hierarchy was that they were to be found to need head shrinking/drying out at a suitably nice establishment, rather than being found fit to plead.
In a number of cases she found that they had no medical reason not to go to trial.
This always sparked a “review” of her work. And advice from The Top to be more of A Team Player.
She kept getting the work because of the shortage of doctors. Otherwise someone more pliable would have been found.
I may be out of date, but is fitness to plead still decided by a jury?
It was not so much sectioning people - though some of them were looking for that - as writing medical opinions that the person in question needed to go a treatment route rather than a judicial one. To justify discontinuing prosecution.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Her mistake was not being senior enough.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.
So cynical. But seen too often at upper levels too dismiss.
A friend worked as an NHS psychiatrist.
After a while she noticed a pattern - she would be given such cases - A mover and shaker in the world of government (in the sense of organising our world) - NGO, Civil Service, Police, local government. Facing criminal charges of one sort or another. No national level politicians, but that might just have been luck of the drawer.
The strong er…. advice from her hierarchy was that they were to be found to need head shrinking/drying out at a suitably nice establishment, rather than being found fit to plead.
In a number of cases she found that they had no medical reason not to go to trial.
This always sparked a “review” of her work. And advice from The Top to be more of A Team Player.
She kept getting the work because of the shortage of doctors. Otherwise someone more pliable would have been found.
I may be out of date, but is fitness to plead still decided by a jury?
To answer my own question, it is now determined by a judge, not a jury.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Our arguments rage over tiny amounts of GDP per head.
This seems rather more fundamental to me. And if it's a case of exchanging French sovereignty for Chinese sovereignty, I'd prefer the former.
I could fully see democracy going into reverse this century.
I think people underestimate how much its development and spread has been predicated on the belief it delivers better economic outcomes for more, and that all coincided with the extraordinary 1750-2000 growth period.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Actually the Manchester-Leeds axis is perhaps more promising. Somewhere near Halifax.
A problem being that Halifax is already there.
Unless you want to build on the moors you're not going to fit a new city in between Leeds and Manchester.
There’s lots of space
Ever heard of the Pennines ?
That's where the 'space' is.
Here’s a screenshot from Google maps of the area immediately around Halifax. Moorland is hello-brown, the green is farmland. There’s more green space further South and East too.
At reasonable densities you could easily get a city with the population of Sheffield there.
At higher densities you could pretty much get Kowloon plus Rio in there. Two cities unbothered about mountain obstacles.
The same is true of lots of other areas where people assume there is no space. We’ve only built on a fraction of usable land.
I'm no expert on US politics, but I listen to Americast on R4 every week. This week they had an interesting interview with Jim Messina. He reckons that the Republicans are bonkers, because if they went for Nikki Haley, Biden would be toast - but of course they won't. Made sense to me, unlike their addiction to Trump.
These are the people who thought Roy Moore, Mastriano, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Christine O’Donnell, Herschel Walker, et al were brilliant candidates.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Seems a bit harsh considering sex offenders and thieves keep their jobs.
A police officer has been dismissed from GMP for drink driving. PC Jarmila Kocanova, who was convicted for the offence after pleading guilty in court last June, was more than four times the legal limit when she was caught.
Apologising for her actions, the Rochdale resident said she 'genuinely regrets' the events which took place last April. At a misconduct hearing on Friday (April 28), a Police Federation representative urged the force not to dismiss her, telling GMP's top cop that the move would effectively make her homeless.
I don't think it is particularly harsh (though the sex offender thing is clearly worse). The police are paid to uphold the law - breaking it should be a sacking offence with no ifs or buts.
Her mistake was not being senior enough.
A senior officer would have got a convenient diagnosis of being medically unfit to plead due to stress and ended up at a country club treatment centre for a few months (paid for by the tax payer, of course) before returning to duty.
So cynical. But seen too often at upper levels too dismiss.
A friend worked as an NHS psychiatrist.
After a while she noticed a pattern - she would be given such cases - A mover and shaker in the world of government (in the sense of organising our world) - NGO, Civil Service, Police, local government. Facing criminal charges of one sort or another. No national level politicians, but that might just have been luck of the drawer.
The strong er…. advice from her hierarchy was that they were to be found to need head shrinking/drying out at a suitably nice establishment, rather than being found fit to plead.
In a number of cases she found that they had no medical reason not to go to trial.
This always sparked a “review” of her work. And advice from The Top to be more of A Team Player.
She kept getting the work because of the shortage of doctors. Otherwise someone more pliable would have been found.
I may be out of date, but is fitness to plead still decided by a jury?
It was not so much sectioning people - though some of them were looking for that - as writing medical opinions that the person in question needed to go a treatment route rather than a judicial one. To justify discontinuing prosecution.
Thanks. I was asking how it was decided, not what it meant. But I've looked it up myself now.
The problem with building a city between Manchester and Leeds is that there’s absolutely no economic demand for it.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
I think building a new City in North Lincolnshire is the way forward.
Yep. Something I have advocated before. Although usually I suggest southern Lincolnshire. But your suggestion - say around Grimsby/Scunthorpe with good access to the Humber estuary makes very good sense.
That said I also agree withGardenwalker on increasing the population density of existing cities. Build up not out.
Building up not out is a bit Soviet 1960s Labour though. Building future slums in Greater Grimsby is no better than in Tower Hamlets. The Milton Keynes model is much more satisfying. Building out not up gives more opportunity for Tory financing land owners to make a quick buck too, which may help focus minds.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Interesting question for AUKUS as well. Having an independent small nation close to Australia and possibly prone to Chinese influence is not optimal
The Chinese are going balls deep, economically and militarily, in PNG and that's only 4km from Australia. I'd say that's a more pressing concern.
At some point this century I expect a military confrontation with China.
Only the overthrow of the CCP and flipping it to a democracy could change that.
Need to look at household disposable income for a better view.
I know people that have been to Liechtenstein. It is by all accounts jnsanely prosperous (like next door Switzerland but even more so). It’s not all an illusion
I went to Liechtenstein once. My only recollection is of a waiter getting rather cross with us when we sat at a reserved table.
It seems as though the Local Plans won't have a lot of power but it's often those which bring down local administrations when the electorate perceive what is being planned as not being in keeping with what is there.
That's the thing - Conservatives throw accusations of NIMBYism around at Liberal Democrats, Residents and others opposed to proposed developments but there's a world of difference between being opposed to housing (whichb no one is) and being opposed to high density developments on greenfield sites without adequate supporting infrastructure which seem to be more about maximising the profits of developers than providing sustainable local communities.
Many would also argue brownfield sites should be the starting point (in my part of the world that's really all there is) but of course we know that reduces developer profits because of the need to decontaminate or do additional preparatory work.
Supporting infrastructure such as schools, transport and GP surgeries also needs to be considered in order not to put unreasonable pressure on what's there and most larger developments should contain retail and other business opportunities to provide jobs for the new residents.
From an electoral point of view, and probably also an infrastructure and environmental one, surely the best option is to go really big in one of two places only. High density, hundreds of thousands of new units, proper infrastructure and services to go with them.
You only lose possibly a dozen or so of council seats in areas affected as opposed to hundreds across vast swathes of the country when you go for sprawling patchy development: an estate here, a new village there, the odd few houses in every community.
You get better value for money from concentrated public services: new hospital, new primary and secondary schools, train, tram and bus routes. And you get to retain 99% of the remaining green space in the rest of the country.
2 new cities, that’s what I’d go for. One somewhere like Cambridgeshire on the East Coast mainline, the other between Manchester and Sheffield along the NPR line. And of course the Anglesey metropolis with its preferential 15% corporate tax rate and tunnel to Ireland, but that can come later.
A new city of tower blocks in the Peak District national park.
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Actually the Manchester-Leeds axis is perhaps more promising. Somewhere near Halifax.
A problem being that Halifax is already there.
Unless you want to build on the moors you're not going to fit a new city in between Leeds and Manchester.
There’s lots of space
The topography is incredibly challenging and will add cost. The infrastructure needed even more (Manchester, Bradford and Leeds put enough strain on it as it is).
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Sovereignty. The same as any other territory wanting to run its own affairs, colonial and post colonial history has any number of examples.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Our arguments rage over tiny amounts of GDP per head.
This seems rather more fundamental to me. And if it's a case of exchanging French sovereignty for Chinese sovereignty, I'd prefer the former.
I could fully see democracy going into reverse this century.
I think people underestimate how much its development and spread has been predicated on the belief it delivers better economic outcomes for more, and that all coincided with the extraordinary 1750-2000 growth period.
Very much so. If economic growth ended, people would look to boost their own position by grabbing the lands and goods of others, as used to be the norm.
This area is also prime: at the intersection of the A14 and railway from Felixstowe, the West coast mainline, HS2, the M1 and M6. Already the logistics capital of the UK. Rugby has the lowest unemployment in the country.
The land is fairly flat, unforested, not particularly agriculturally productive and with no AoNBs or national parks.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Pride has no price.
It's basically a choice between living in a first world nation or a third world kleptocracy. It's surprising how many would prefer the latter.
Mauritius is not a third world kleptocracy. Nor is Singapore. Nor is Brunei
Interestingly, though, none of those have human rights to what we'd call Western standards.
Singapore has just ruthlessly executed one guy who got caught with 2 pounds of gear.
Comments
I think french territories elsewhere are probably safe for now as either too reliant on the French state or lacking local cultural identity
Martinique is one of the most miserable places in the Caribbean however. The locals resent the French intensely yet haven’t got the guts to cut the cord. Leads to sullen self hatred
There seems to be an assumption with the whole debate that the numbers are correct on trends, now it's all about how we solve the issues those numbers bring about. But what about if the numbers are wrong?
However, both Trump and RDS generally beat Harris in head to head polling so I'm not sure that slogan is that effective if a large chunk of the voting electorate is persuaded that a vote for Biden is really a vote for Harris.
It will work to an extent
Secondly: Sunak has not been found guilty of anything yet; words of the investigation cannot be quoted because no investigation has been completed - though much wrong-doing has been implied by some on here. If Sunak is cleared, I hope that people would apologise to him and his wife.
In a similar manner, if he is shown to be the worst transgressor since Judas then I'll say I was wrong (though I think my point about the rules is valid). If the investigation uses similar words to those you use to excuse Starmer, again, I think the people who accuse him of stuff like 'grifting' would apologise.
And what about the Jess Phillips case?
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Had a wonderful time the other night chatting to an American tourist over a decent Scotch. He was telling me all about the influence of Dispensational premillennialism on American politics. It did explain a lot....
Full marks for originality but fewer for practicality.
Hell, I went for a long weekend break in the *Cotswolds* and rescued (sort of) some idiots who thought that flip flops are marching gear.
Pride has no price.
Then imagine if my son is estranged from me. I have no way of knowing what interests he has, and yet he could gain from my decision. Yet political opponents would use it against me.
Or golfing partners, or mistresses/partners etc.
(*) Hah!
Is there even enough room to fit in a new town as opposed to massively increasing the size of present small towns ?
In any case a new town would have about 100k inhabitants - would that even have a noticeable effect on southern England's housing issues ?
Somewhere like French Guiana relies entirely on France
Also, as @Casino_Royale points out, it’s not just money. It’s local emotion and identity, as any Brexiteer should know. These are strong in the pacific
Reunion is probably safe for Paris. A lot of ethnic French people there
Build market town type environments - mixed (but not too mixed) designs. Terraced houses, with shops, cafes etc forming loci at various points, with a larger shopping/entertainment area also included.
Good access for deliveries to reduce car usage - coal lanes?
Build in dedicated bus roads and cycle lanes , with complete segregation of use.
The main square needs to be decorated with a concrete brutalist cube - all the advocates of brutalist architecture go underneath that.
(Not a comment on the policy - which subject to detail of course - could be sensible)
A bit trickier in the South Pacific as there’s nothing to be a hub for. Tourism is really the only option.
Interestingly, the East-West Rail project may see a new station being built on the ECML at Tempsford ("St Neots South"). There were also plans/options for a new town of 7,000 homes on the old Tempsford airfield, and other plans for large settlements in the area. Very large, if you listen to some of the excited whispers.
It won't happen, of course, because it might indicate a joined-up housing/transport policy...
(Just as long as they preserve the exquisite tiny SOE museum at the airfield - https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/raf-tempsford-memorial-barn )
Unless you want to build on the moors you're not going to fit a new city in between Leeds and Manchester.
It will say that she needs to avoid any conflicts of interest - but we don’t know that she has any involvement in Study Hall. It may have been wise to set Catamaran up as a blind trust (although we don’t know to what extent she is personally involved - I suspect not much in the day to day although she is a director).
Moreover the scheme in question is a standard one available to all early stage companies in the UK. There is no evidence it was improperly given, that there was any lobbying or that the people handling the grant even knew she was an investor (catamaran would have been disclosed but they may not have looked into it).
So we have:
- disclosure of the direct investment
- no evidence that there is a conflict
- No evidence of improper behaviour
So all we are left with is the Caesar’s wife argument. Which is pretty feeble.
But it might be wise, going forward, to disclose (say every quarter) a list of Catamaran’s investments whether it is required or not.
* I’m using “she” because it’s Rishi’s wife but feel free to read as Rishi instead.
New Caledonia’s GDP per capita is $37,000. All from those huge nickel reserves. They can easily afford independence and they’d be free of the french. I suspect it will happen sooner or later
Polynesia is $21,000. Not massive but enough to think: let’s give it a go. Their tourist potential is intense
As the Winnats has.
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3989723
After a while she noticed a pattern - she would be given such cases - A mover and shaker in the world of government (in the sense of organising our world) - NGO, Civil Service, Police, local government. Facing criminal charges of one sort or another. No national level politicians, but that might just have been luck of the drawer.
The strong er…. advice from her hierarchy was that they were to be found to need head shrinking/drying out at a suitably nice establishment, rather than being found fit to plead.
In a number of cases she found that they had no medical reason not to go to trial.
This always sparked a “review” of her work. And advice from The Top to be more of A Team Player.
She kept getting the work because of the shortage of doctors. Otherwise someone more pliable would have been found.
The only honest slogan that the Brexiteers could have used here would have been "Poorer, but Sovereign". Of course that wasn't what they campaigned on.
Just densify existing cities, like they do everywhere else in the western world.
This seems rather more fundamental to me. And if it's a case of exchanging French sovereignty for Chinese sovereignty, I'd prefer the former.
That's where the 'space' is.
That said I also agree withGardenwalker on increasing the population density of existing cities. Build up not out.
Seems to be a close contest between the Faroes - $69k gdp per capita - and the Falklands - $70k GDP per capita
Unless anyone knows of anywhere else?
The caymans. $86,000 gdp per capita!
No wonder there is no vibrant cayman independence movement
Who knew these little British colonies were so insanely rich??
House prices are already cheap, and wages are low. According to Tory dogma, investment should be flooding in.
But it isn’t.
The big drawback for independence for micro-states is that they depend upon big powers to defend them.
Liechtenstein
Essentially, Japan, S Korea and Taiwan risk being crowded out of the export markets they need (lacking domestic markets of scale).
Easy read across to the UK, which has no industrial policy at all.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/U.S.-and-EU-embrace-of-industrial-policy-puts-Asia-at-risk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics
Need to look at household disposable income for a better view.
Dubai was paid for by trillions of oil money and has found its role as a legally stable financial entrepot to service the Middle East and India.
It is still, via things like Emirates, subsidised by oil money.
Not sure how the Falklands manages it! At one point there was the hope of oil, but I think the oil fields failed to show anything worth pumping out?
EDIT: I see this has already been covered. And we can subsidise new cities with our very significant tax base until they are self sustaining. Besides which we would not be building on empty desert.
Tho appreciate you are just doing microstates now.
One imagines the Vatican is the wealthiest entity on earth, measured in a per capita basis.
Surprising how much money there is in fishing, yet Grimsby is basically Albania-on-the-Humber.
Nowhere else in the North is, the entire country outside the SE (and part of Scotland) subsists on subsidy.
I think people underestimate how much its development and spread has been predicated on the belief it delivers better economic outcomes for more, and that all coincided with the extraordinary 1750-2000 growth period.
At reasonable densities you could easily get a city with the population of Sheffield there.
At higher densities you could pretty much get Kowloon plus Rio in there. Two cities unbothered about mountain obstacles.
The same is true of lots of other areas where people assume there is no space. We’ve only built on a fraction of usable land.
Whereas the richest micro state is Monaco: $204,000
Amazingly the Vatican is just $21,000! Must be all those underpaid Swiss Guards
Only the overthrow of the CCP and flipping it to a democracy could change that.
You’re essentially building into hillsides.
The land is fairly flat, unforested, not particularly agriculturally productive and with no AoNBs or national parks.
Singapore has just ruthlessly executed one guy who got caught with 2 pounds of gear.