It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
@christopherhope NEW Conservative right wing MPs are gloomy tonight with Suella Braverman’s future in the balance and Boris Johnson being reported to the police. One blames the Whitehall ‘blob’ saying: “We are like being gobbled up like we are in Pac Man.”
Odd metaphor. Are right wing Tories in this case Pac Man, with the ghosts being the blob, or the ghosts, with the blob being Pac Man, or the power pills or fruit, with the blob being Pac Man? The one which seems to fit best is the ghosts, but that isn't a terribly flattering light to paint yourself in.
I do have some sympathy with the sentiment. It must be very hard to be an MP who the civil service dislike politically. But Boris has it coming. There are thousands of people who broke the rules during lockdown - the idiotic, illiberal rules he was responsible for - who haven't been indulgently let off the hook. He has only himself to blame.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Agree with this. Boris is the most unsuitable person to have been PM in living memory. But would have been dwarfed by the sheer WTAF of Corbyn becoming PM.
But what does it matter. Corbyn wasn't PM, wasn't ever going to PM, despite the crank-foaming never got near becoming PM.
Boris on the other hand? There's an awful lot of very angry people out there who still rage about what Boris did to their lives during Covid. Their own mental hell. Marriages broken. Parents lost remotely. Whilst he said "what rules" and carried on being a "selfish libertine".
There are very few people who will refuse to vote Labour because Corbyn was once leader. An awful lot who already are refusing to vote Conservative because Boris was PM. Labour wanted to move on from Jezbollah so badly that he's been excommunicated. The Tories want Boris back so badly that he has his own fanclub (Tories for Democracy thingy) and now CrankCom (NatC conference).
Some valid points here
However on lockdown never forget that Starmer and Labour wanted MORE lockdown - and would have had us trapped at home until about June 2022 (with all the extra debt)
I keep hearing this "naah but Starmer wanted more lockdown" thing. Boris kept fucking up unlockdown - the idiocy over Christmas 2020 being a prime example.
The only person making the decision was Boris. The only person passing the legislation was Boris. Not Starmer. Lockdown drove me mildly mad and did much worse to other people. But the alternative was the script of the film Contagion. Lockdown isn't the problem - that fucker brazenly ignoring it, and stuffing billions into Tory pockets in exchange for no PPE which killed medics is the problem.
What does Starmer have to do with it?
Well said. Locking down late in exponential growth prolonged the lockdown.
@christopherhope NEW Conservative right wing MPs are gloomy tonight with Suella Braverman’s future in the balance and Boris Johnson being reported to the police. One blames the Whitehall ‘blob’ saying: “We are like being gobbled up like we are in Pac Man.”
You can tell that's actually something a gammony tory said because it involves a 40 year old cultural reference.
Some people like to claim that computer games inspire violence, but if Pac-Man had affected us 80s kids, we'd have grown up and ended up walking around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
It's almost like they need to find a way to get water companies to actual spend some money on new (replacement) infrastructure.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
The problem is that it's the surrounding infrastructure that needs to be built. Case in point for the last set of houses in the new estate to be built the power lines to the estate need to be improved - cue major project as the roads across town (fully built up) are dug up to allow the new cables to be laid.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
You go and have a swim in the shite, mate.
Developers aren't paying for the sewerage. Why should the public do so? Private water companies sure don't.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Agree with this. Boris is the most unsuitable person to have been PM in living memory. But would have been dwarfed by the sheer WTAF of Corbyn becoming PM.
But what does it matter. Corbyn wasn't PM, wasn't ever going to PM, despite the crank-foaming never got near becoming PM.
Boris on the other hand? There's an awful lot of very angry people out there who still rage about what Boris did to their lives during Covid. Their own mental hell. Marriages broken. Parents lost remotely. Whilst he said "what rules" and carried on being a "selfish libertine".
There are very few people who will refuse to vote Labour because Corbyn was once leader. An awful lot who already are refusing to vote Conservative because Boris was PM. Labour wanted to move on from Jezbollah so badly that he's been excommunicated. The Tories want Boris back so badly that he has his own fanclub (Tories for Democracy thingy) and now CrankCom (NatC conference).
Some valid points here
However on lockdown never forget that Starmer and Labour wanted MORE lockdown - and would have had us trapped at home until about June 2022 (with all the extra debt)
I keep hearing this "naah but Starmer wanted more lockdown" thing. Boris kept fucking up unlockdown - the idiocy over Christmas 2020 being a prime example.
The only person making the decision was Boris. The only person passing the legislation was Boris. Not Starmer. Lockdown drove me mildly mad and did much worse to other people. But the alternative was the script of the film Contagion. Lockdown isn't the problem - that fucker brazenly ignoring it, and stuffing billions into Tory pockets in exchange for no PPE which killed medics is the problem.
What does Starmer have to do with it?
Well said. Locking down late in exponential growth prolonged the lockdown.
What a load of nonsense. The virus was there and had exponential growth and the potential for it either way. Locking down early doesn't lighten the lockdown, as the virus is still there when you come out of it. As SAGE said pre-lockdown I.
All lockdown does is temporarily reduce cases, then you remove lockdown the virus is still there again, so if you are controlling it via lockdowns you inevitably end up locked down again.
The virus was all over Europe. No densely populated country in Europe locked down 'early' and had a shorter lockdown as a result, in fact the UK came out of the final lockdown while far too late actually much earlier than any other nation that locked down.
Or can you think of any densely populated nation in Europe that went into lockdown sooner like you wanted and lifted their final lockdown before the UK did?
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
**Statement on behalf of Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP** **for immediate use, attributable to his office**
The assertion by the Cabinet Office that there have been further Covid rule breaches is totally untrue.
Lawyers have examined the events in question and advised that they were lawful.
No contact was made with Mr Johnson before these incorrect allegations were made both to the police and to the Privileges Committee. This is both bizarre and unacceptable.
For whatever political purpose, it is plain that a last ditch attempt is being made to lengthen the Privileges Committee investigation as it was coming to a conclusion and to undermine Mr Johnson.
Mr Johnson’s lawyers have tonight written to the police forces involved to explain in detail why the Cabinet Office is entirely wrong in its assertions.
The events in question were all within the rules either because they were held outdoors or came within another lawful exception. They include regular meetings with civil servants and advisers.
It appears some within government have decided to make unfounded suggestions both to the police and to the Privileges Committee.
Many will conclude that this has all the hallmarks of yet another politically motivated stitch up.
-- So Bozo won't admit to be wrong even when lawyers know things are as dodgy as f***
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
The problem is that it's the surrounding infrastructure that needs to be built. Case in point for the last set of houses in the new estate to be built the power lines to the estate need to be improved - cue major project as the roads across town (fully built up) are dug up to allow the new cables to be laid.
So if infrastructure is needed, then get it done.
If the roads need to be worked on, get it done.
Deal with it and life goes on, not the end of the world.
Its not possible to have a growing population and new houses built only where it won't inconvenience anyone, that's impossible.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
Er, that 5%'s overall. Not in specific areas. Which is the question here.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
It's almost like they need to find a way to get water companies to actual spend some money on new (replacement) infrastructure.
But new water infrastructure is also strongly discouraged by EU waterways directives. Encouraging us to conserve water (like public advertising advising to take shorter showers) rather than actually build new infrastructure is EU policy. Ask Malmesbury, who has some experience in public administration, how hard it is even to make an empty gravel pit into a new reservoir. The direction of travel is very anti-human, and it is an immense blessing that we have left - though it is becoming abundantly clear that our political class has not.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
Er, that 5%'s overall. Not in specific areas. Which is the question here.
No its not the question. There are no areas where there is no need for infrastructure work.
The excuses about infrastructure to excuse NIMBYism are just that, an excuse.
If a young couple and their two children all live in one crowded room in one of the adults own parents home because that is all the can find to live in, then does their shit magically not stick or need to be flushed? Do the kids magically not need to go to school?
If that young family suddenly have a house of their own near to their parents home, then the demands at the local school, or for sewerage etc, are not significantly altered at all. But their quality of life is.
If you want to start deporting people to get rid of effluence and children from schools etc, then make that case. But if you want people to live in this country, they need a home first, and we need to deal with any externalities after - not use externalities as an excuse to have people live in squalor without a home of their own.
@christopherhope How on earth will Rishi Sunak respond to this challenge? It is a huge test of the PM’a authority and also backbench support for Boris Johnson over the next 48 hours.
@sturdyAlex I seem to recall Pac-Man was the good guy which makes them fruits and ghosts.
By the way, @christopherhope's feed is HILARIOUS. It's one hysterical mass of Johnson apologia. Including a defence by his sister and one by his spokesperson, presented as if they are mic drop scoops.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Sunak could threaten them with a good ole election.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
You go and have a swim in the shite, mate.
Developers aren't paying for the sewerage. Why should the public do so? Private water companies sure don't.
Why should the public pay for it? If its a matter of public interest, then the public should, because that's what our taxes are to pay for. If its not, then the bill needs to go to whoever it belongs to.
But its not about the number of houses. Houses don't create shit, people do. 12 people living in one home generate the same amount of shit as 4 people living in 3 homes.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Sunak could threaten them with a good ole election.
Pretty sad when pulling a grenade on himself and his shitty Government is his only option.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
Er, that 5%'s overall. Not in specific areas. Which is the question here.
No its not the question. There are no areas where there is no need for infrastructure work.
The excuses about infrastructure to excuse NIMBYism are just that, an excuse.
If a young couple and their two children all live in one crowded room in one of the adults own parents home because that is all the can find to live in, then does their shit magically not stick or need to be flushed? Do the kids magically not need to go to school?
If that young family suddenly have a house of their own near to their parents home, then the demands at the local school, or for sewerage etc, are not significantly altered at all. But their quality of life is.
If you want to start deporting people to get rid of effluence and children from schools etc, then make that case. But if you want people to live in this country, they need a home first, and we need to deal with any externalities after - not use externalities as an excuse to have people live in squalor without a home of their own.
Hi Barty. Nice to see you back. Or have we just not been on at the same time for a while?
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
The problem is that it's the surrounding infrastructure that needs to be built. Case in point for the last set of houses in the new estate to be built the power lines to the estate need to be improved - cue major project as the roads across town (fully built up) are dug up to allow the new cables to be laid.
So if infrastructure is needed, then get it done.
If the roads need to be worked on, get it done.
Deal with it and life goes on, not the end of the world.
Its not possible to have a growing population and new houses built only where it won't inconvenience anyone, that's impossible.
There are at least 10 substantial new developments around Loughborough and surrounding villages that are in the construction phase now. No expansion of schools, doctors, dentist. No shops being included, no cafes, no pub. Just houses. I'm not sure this is sustainable.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Who’d have thought that organising a conference with an agenda that directly undermined the government to which they ostensibly owed loyalty would provoke a counter-reaction?
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Who’d have thought that organising a conference with an agenda that directly undermined the government to which they ostensibly owed loyalty would provoke a counter-reaction?
Um, really? Public espousal of Conservatism is undermining the Conservative Government?
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
The problem is that it's the surrounding infrastructure that needs to be built. Case in point for the last set of houses in the new estate to be built the power lines to the estate need to be improved - cue major project as the roads across town (fully built up) are dug up to allow the new cables to be laid.
So if infrastructure is needed, then get it done.
If the roads need to be worked on, get it done.
Deal with it and life goes on, not the end of the world.
Its not possible to have a growing population and new houses built only where it won't inconvenience anyone, that's impossible.
There are at least 10 substantial new developments around Loughborough and surrounding villages that are in the construction phase now. No expansion of schools, doctors, dentist. No shops being included, no cafes, no pub. Just houses. I'm not sure this is sustainable.
Hopefully those 10 substantial new developments are followed up with 20 more. Then we might start making serious progress at reversing our housing shortage.
And shops will open up wherever there's new demand, and so should anything else. It shouldn't be micromanaged or planned with developments, it should happen organically.
I live in a substantial new development, in an area surrounded by other substantial new developments. I do my shopping in supermarkets that didn't exist two years ago, but unsurprisingly have been built as the shopping chains want to place themselves in easy access to where their customers live.
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
@GuidoFawkes One Rishi source echoing Boris allies blaming out of control civil service "chucking shit" at anyone they can. Tories seem enfeebled by blob insurrection.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
Er, that 5%'s overall. Not in specific areas. Which is the question here.
No its not the question. There are no areas where there is no need for infrastructure work.
The excuses about infrastructure to excuse NIMBYism are just that, an excuse.
If a young couple and their two children all live in one crowded room in one of the adults own parents home because that is all the can find to live in, then does their shit magically not stick or need to be flushed? Do the kids magically not need to go to school?
If that young family suddenly have a house of their own near to their parents home, then the demands at the local school, or for sewerage etc, are not significantly altered at all. But their quality of life is.
If you want to start deporting people to get rid of effluence and children from schools etc, then make that case. But if you want people to live in this country, they need a home first, and we need to deal with any externalities after - not use externalities as an excuse to have people live in squalor without a home of their own.
Hi Barty. Nice to see you back. Or have we just not been on at the same time for a while?
Hi thanks for that. I've not been on much at all for the last few months. Real life has just been too busy.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Who’d have thought that organising a conference with an agenda that directly undermined the government to which they ostensibly owed loyalty would provoke a counter-reaction?
Um, really? Public espousal of Conservatism is undermining the Conservative Government?
Come off it. It was a clear attack on Sunak’s authority. He had to fight back.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
Er, that 5%'s overall. Not in specific areas. Which is the question here.
No its not the question. There are no areas where there is no need for infrastructure work.
The excuses about infrastructure to excuse NIMBYism are just that, an excuse.
If a young couple and their two children all live in one crowded room in one of the adults own parents home because that is all the can find to live in, then does their shit magically not stick or need to be flushed? Do the kids magically not need to go to school?
If that young family suddenly have a house of their own near to their parents home, then the demands at the local school, or for sewerage etc, are not significantly altered at all. But their quality of life is.
If you want to start deporting people to get rid of effluence and children from schools etc, then make that case. But if you want people to live in this country, they need a home first, and we need to deal with any externalities after - not use externalities as an excuse to have people live in squalor without a home of their own.
Hi Barty. Nice to see you back. Or have we just not been on at the same time for a while?
Hi thanks for that. I've not been on much at all for the last few months. Real life has just been too busy.
Don't you just hate in when real life gets in the way?
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Who’d have thought that organising a conference with an agenda that directly undermined the government to which they ostensibly owed loyalty would provoke a counter-reaction?
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Who’d have thought that organising a conference with an agenda that directly undermined the government to which they ostensibly owed loyalty would provoke a counter-reaction?
Um, really? Public espousal of Conservatism is undermining the Conservative Government?
Come off it. It was a clear attack on Sunak’s authority. He had to fight back.
You come off it. Boris didn’t even attend the conference. The attempting maiming of Suella is a massive 12 bore into his own Government's foot. And apparently he's briefing denials of this latest Boris stabbing and blaming the out of control civil service.
**Statement on behalf of Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP** **for immediate use, attributable to his office**
The assertion by the Cabinet Office that there have been further Covid rule breaches is totally untrue.
Lawyers have examined the events in question and advised that they were lawful.
No contact was made with Mr Johnson before these incorrect allegations were made both to the police and to the Privileges Committee. This is both bizarre and unacceptable.
For whatever political purpose, it is plain that a last ditch attempt is being made to lengthen the Privileges Committee investigation as it was coming to a conclusion and to undermine Mr Johnson.
Mr Johnson’s lawyers have tonight written to the police forces involved to explain in detail why the Cabinet Office is entirely wrong in its assertions.
The events in question were all within the rules either because they were held outdoors or came within another lawful exception. They include regular meetings with civil servants and advisers.
It appears some within government have decided to make unfounded suggestions both to the police and to the Privileges Committee.
Many will conclude that this has all the hallmarks of yet another politically motivated stitch up.
-- So Bozo won't admit to be wrong even when lawyers know things are as dodgy as f***
"Mr Johnson's lawyers"? Oh please, They're our lawyers. We are paying for them. They are a gift from the nation to Mr Johnson.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
Witch-hunt? That sounds very positive. They need less of the vacuous, empty-headed nutters birthed by the Johnsonian Loyalty Cult.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Shit doesn't come from houses, it comes from bottoms. The bottoms are already here - giving them houses to live in will not result in higher levels of it. As stated in the article, the issue that has lead to the Natural England ban is one where the entire housing stock contributes but 5%.
Er, that 5%'s overall. Not in specific areas. Which is the question here.
No its not the question. There are no areas where there is no need for infrastructure work.
The excuses about infrastructure to excuse NIMBYism are just that, an excuse.
If a young couple and their two children all live in one crowded room in one of the adults own parents home because that is all the can find to live in, then does their shit magically not stick or need to be flushed? Do the kids magically not need to go to school?
If that young family suddenly have a house of their own near to their parents home, then the demands at the local school, or for sewerage etc, are not significantly altered at all. But their quality of life is.
If you want to start deporting people to get rid of effluence and children from schools etc, then make that case. But if you want people to live in this country, they need a home first, and we need to deal with any externalities after - not use externalities as an excuse to have people live in squalor without a home of their own.
Hi Barty. Nice to see you back. Or have we just not been on at the same time for a while?
Hi thanks for that. I've not been on much at all for the last few months. Real life has just been too busy.
Don't you just hate in when real life gets in the way?
"They come here to be woken up! The dream PB has become their reality! Who are you to say otherwise, sir?"
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
So Sunak's not all bad news and rubbish judgement?
Who’d have thought that organising a conference with an agenda that directly undermined the government to which they ostensibly owed loyalty would provoke a counter-reaction?
Um, really? Public espousal of Conservatism is undermining the Conservative Government?
Come off it. It was a clear attack on Sunak’s authority. He had to fight back.
You come off it. Boris didn’t even attend the conference. The attempting maiming of Suella is a massive 12 bore into his own Government's foot. And apparently he's briefing denials of this latest Boris stabbing and blaming the out of control civil service.
It’s the kind of event that you can have when you’re in opposition, but just NOT helpful when you’re the government.
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
@GuidoFawkes One Rishi source echoing Boris allies blaming out of control civil service "chucking shit" at anyone they can. Tories seem enfeebled by blob insurrection.
Wow. Publicly blame your employees for your own incompetence and failings and they push back. Whatever next?
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
Not exactly a well planned estate then. Ideally you should have a shop within walking distance as otherwise you are restricting those houses to multiple car households.
@christopherhope NEW💥 One former Tory Cabinet minister texts me tonight: "I didn't really believe in the 'blob' till now. "But the events of the last few days - the repeated briefing against Suella and now tonight's action against Boris - are beginning to make me think again. 1/2
@christopherhope Former Cabinet minister [continued]: "If the PM's team is somehow encouraging all this they need to back off fast, and if they are not they need to take some some tough action for once against civil servants who are leaking against ministers." 2/2
Oh, Rishi needs to take some tough action right enough...
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
What a crock of shit.
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
The problem is that it's the surrounding infrastructure that needs to be built. Case in point for the last set of houses in the new estate to be built the power lines to the estate need to be improved - cue major project as the roads across town (fully built up) are dug up to allow the new cables to be laid.
So if infrastructure is needed, then get it done.
If the roads need to be worked on, get it done.
Deal with it and life goes on, not the end of the world.
Its not possible to have a growing population and new houses built only where it won't inconvenience anyone, that's impossible.
There are at least 10 substantial new developments around Loughborough and surrounding villages that are in the construction phase now. No expansion of schools, doctors, dentist. No shops being included, no cafes, no pub. Just houses. I'm not sure this is sustainable.
The problem is the No Development Agenda is useful to a number of groups
1) Government. Blair found cancelling road projects, for example, very useful. So that money could be spent on schools and hospitals. 2) Businesses. See the water companies. 3) NIMBYs 4) Greens
So you get a massive coalition against…. Everything.
You get housing built because of the huge pressure, but not the infrastructure.
When the infrastructure for dealing with sewage discharges comes up for planning review, those loudest about it, will fight the hardest to stop the problem being fixed.
Can a biological woman have a penis? No. Can a trans woman have a penis? Yes.
Can we move on now please?
Biology is diverse and there are always “edge cases”. So you can have someone who is a biological (cis)woman and has a penis, depending on what you mean by “biological woman” and “penis”. So, for example, aromatase deficiency can occur in an XX-woman with normal internal female genitalia but overvirilisation of the external genitalia, including clitoromegaly.
"But Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Boris was so obviously unacceptable!" "Yes, but Corbyn was so obviously unacceptable!"
[continues until the heat death of the universe]
I get that lefties and Remainers hate Boris but, really, Corbyn is in a different and higher league of unacceptability
Corbyn is an unashamed traitor. An IRA supporting, Hamas-hugging, anti semitic commie traitor
Boris is a charismatic reprobate and a selfish libertine. Boris has personal flaws. Corbyn’s flaws are way more dangerous and ideological even if he is probably the “nicer” gent in some ways
Cummings v Milne is an interesting parallel debate
Not really. Cummings is super intelligent and wins elections and referendums. I’ve seen no evidence for Milne being even smart and he certainly never won any elections
Milne is a classic posho public school Marxist. The Winchester version of bouji grammar school Corbyn
And a lot of people who lost a referendum think that Cummings is super evil, while not having much at all to say about the man who wrote Corbyn's Salisbury response
There you go again.
Both Seumas Milne and Dom Cummings are absolute shits of the highest order.
The taxpayers have paid out substantial money because of the latter's bullying.
Yes but Milne is a Marxist traitor. This stuff isn’t hard
Milne supports Islamists and cheered on 9/11. He got jihadists in to write for the guardian. He thinks Stalin is cool
Cummings might be an arrogant dick and even a bully but if you can’t see the crucial political difference between the two of them then there’s no hope for you
There's a genuinely important question here.
How fash does the far right have to get before Marxism is preferable? Not objectively good, but the lesser of two evils.
Hitler obviously. ("If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.")
Franco? Probably, though it needs a pause for thought.
The fringier bits of US National Conservatism?
None of which stops Corbyn being a fool at best and probably a lot worse than that.
I’ll bite. Franco was preferable to the Stalinist communism which was, eventually, the only apparent alternative during the Spanish civil war. As Orwell discovered
I would agree.
Stalin was preferable to Hitler, or Ante Pavelic, or Ferenc Salazy.
I always enjoyed A Very British Coup, because in Harry Perkins, you actually have a PM who is a traitor (even if Chris Mullin does not see him as such). He’s not a Kinnock, or Foot, or Papandreou, but a man who is trying to turn the UK into a satellite of the USSR.
I think a military coup would be justified against such a leader.
Um, I remember it fondly, although not seen it in yonks. My takeaway was the exact opposite, although to be fair the narrative was framed to make him the hero.
@christopherhope 🔥 Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party. “The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately. “Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
Could it be that there’s not a witch hunt, but that right wingers are just shit and keep breaking the rules?
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
Not exactly a well planned estate then. Ideally you should have a shop within walking distance as otherwise you are restricting those houses to multiple car households.
You’re thinking like a toff who has a bloke to put toothpaste on his toothbrush.
A properly designed estate should look like this -
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Actually they are less than worthless.
Make it a condition of granting planning permission for more than 100 houses that the infrastructure is built first, with a five year limit, after which the land passes to the local authority if the infrastructure has not been built. After the infrastructure has been completed, the developer can start building houses. In fact, there should be a maximum time of five years for unused land bank holdings, after which the land passes to the local authority, who can keep it or resell it.
**Statement on behalf of Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP** **for immediate use, attributable to his office**
The assertion by the Cabinet Office that there have been further Covid rule breaches is totally untrue.
Lawyers have examined the events in question and advised that they were lawful.
No contact was made with Mr Johnson before these incorrect allegations were made both to the police and to the Privileges Committee. This is both bizarre and unacceptable.
For whatever political purpose, it is plain that a last ditch attempt is being made to lengthen the Privileges Committee investigation as it was coming to a conclusion and to undermine Mr Johnson.
Mr Johnson’s lawyers have tonight written to the police forces involved to explain in detail why the Cabinet Office is entirely wrong in its assertions.
The events in question were all within the rules either because they were held outdoors or came within another lawful exception. They include regular meetings with civil servants and advisers.
It appears some within government have decided to make unfounded suggestions both to the police and to the Privileges Committee.
Many will conclude that this has all the hallmarks of yet another politically motivated stitch up.
-- So Bozo won't admit to be wrong even when lawyers know things are as dodgy as f***
The events didn't happen. And even if they did happen they were legal. 😀
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Actually they are less than worthless.
Make it a condition of granting planning permission for more than 100 houses that the infrastructure is built first, with a five year limit, after which the land passes to the local authority if the infrastructure has not been built. After the infrastructure has been completed, the developer can start building houses. In fact, there should be a maximum time of five years for unused land bank holdings, after which the land passes to the local authority, who can keep it or resell it.
Build the infrastructure, then sell the plots to the developers at a price that covers the infrastructure.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Actually they are less than worthless.
Make it a condition of granting planning permission for more than 100 houses that the infrastructure is built first, with a five year limit, after which the land passes to the local authority if the infrastructure has not been built. After the infrastructure has been completed, the developer can start building houses. In fact, there should be a maximum time of five years for unused land bank holdings, after which the land passes to the local authority, who can keep it or resell it.
You could call such an obligation a Section 106 agreement:
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
Not exactly a well planned estate then. Ideally you should have a shop within walking distance as otherwise you are restricting those houses to multiple car households.
You’re thinking like a toff who has a bloke to put toothpaste on his toothbrush.
A properly designed estate should look like this -
I'm actually thinking about the local estate which because it was built by a clueful local firm has a shopping parade in the middle with the houses around the edge (think all houses are max 10 minutes walk from the shops and pub). Mind you they wanted it to be a Garden Village so they needed to include the village bits.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Actually they are less than worthless.
Make it a condition of granting planning permission for more than 100 houses that the infrastructure is built first, with a five year limit, after which the land passes to the local authority if the infrastructure has not been built. After the infrastructure has been completed, the developer can start building houses. In fact, there should be a maximum time of five years for unused land bank holdings, after which the land passes to the local authority, who can keep it or resell it.
Build the infrastructure, then sell the plots to the developers at a price that covers the infrastructure.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Actually they are less than worthless.
Make it a condition of granting planning permission for more than 100 houses that the infrastructure is built first, with a five year limit, after which the land passes to the local authority if the infrastructure has not been built. After the infrastructure has been completed, the developer can start building houses. In fact, there should be a maximum time of five years for unused land bank holdings, after which the land passes to the local authority, who can keep it or resell it.
Build the infrastructure, then sell the plots to the developers at a price that covers the infrastructure.
That's a very dutch approach to housing.
It’s how Chiswick was done, for example.
A lot of Victorian public works were funded by such mechanisms. For examples, chunks of the Thames embankments were done by selling permission to a group of businessmen. Who would then build the river wall. The fill behind was rubble and earth from house building locally. Free dumping until full.
Then they had a chunk of new land to sell on… often the councils would get a chunk of the land as well.
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
Is doing their job when the Minister is incompetent being “in open revolt”?
Doing their job would be a nice change - the current Civil Service is the most useless in history. The open revolt lies in the fact that they are flapping their gums about Ministers to anyone who will listen.
It has been reported in The Times that 160,000 proposed new homes have now been banned, because the quango 'Natural England' has insisted that they would add phosphates to Rivers. Their ban is an enforcement of a 2018 ECJ ruling (yes, from when we'd supposedly already left).
But the House Building Federation have a previous story (from March, when it was only 120,000 homes they were blocking) on their website, with more detail. Including the fact that all existing housing stock (25 million or so) accounts for only 5% of the issue, so these new properties would have a negligible impact. https://www.hbf.co.uk/news/nutrient-neutrality-lichfields-report-unblocking-homebuilding/
This is the kind of shit we left the EU to sort it - their burdensome, wrong-headed regulation is real, it is pertinent to important issues, and it does hold us back.
"shit" is precisely the issue here. If the infrastructure for sewerage is not there, then no point in building houses. Schools, roads, too ... and promises from developers are worthless.
Actually they are less than worthless.
Make it a condition of granting planning permission for more than 100 houses that the infrastructure is built first, with a five year limit, after which the land passes to the local authority if the infrastructure has not been built. After the infrastructure has been completed, the developer can start building houses. In fact, there should be a maximum time of five years for unused land bank holdings, after which the land passes to the local authority, who can keep it or resell it.
You could call such an obligation a Section 106 agreement:
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
Is doing their job when the Minister is incompetent being “in open revolt”?
Doing their job would be a nice change - the current Civil Service is the most useless in history. The open revolt lies in the fact that they are flapping their gums about Ministers to anyone who will listen.
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
I think the tories were idiots to make him PM. And idiots to get rid of him.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
If the criteria is party prospects at the next election I agree they probably should have kept him. But if you go with that criteria why do you think they were idiots to make him PM? Because that's exactly why they did it. They picked him to win the next election and he duly delivered.
Any competent Tory leadership candidate, back in ‘19 could have beaten Corbyn and won back their majority. They just had to loosen up on austerity and follow the midlands and north electoral strategy that was obvious, post 2016. And use their media allies to go hard on corbyn.
It didn’t have to be Johnson.
There were better candidates. Johnson’s flaws were so damn obvious.
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
Not exactly a well planned estate then. Ideally you should have a shop within walking distance as otherwise you are restricting those houses to multiple car households.
You’re thinking like a toff who has a bloke to put toothpaste on his toothbrush.
A properly designed estate should look like this -
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
Is doing their job when the Minister is incompetent being “in open revolt”?
Doing their job would be a nice change - the current Civil Service is the most useless in history. The open revolt lies in the fact that they are flapping their gums about Ministers to anyone who will listen.
The Government is the most useless in history, but I think that represents the people at the top, the politicians, rather than the civil servants.
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
Not exactly a well planned estate then. Ideally you should have a shop within walking distance as otherwise you are restricting those houses to multiple car households.
You’re thinking like a toff who has a bloke to put toothpaste on his toothbrush.
A properly designed estate should look like this -
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
I think the tories were idiots to make him PM. And idiots to get rid of him.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
If the criteria is party prospects at the next election I agree they probably should have kept him. But if you go with that criteria why do you think they were idiots to make him PM? Because that's exactly why they did it. They picked him to win the next election and he duly delivered.
Any competent Tory leadership candidate, back in ‘19 could have beaten Corbyn and won back their majority. They just had to loosen up on austerity and follow the midlands and north electoral strategy that was obvious, post 2016. It didn’t have to be Johnson.
There were better candidates.
I mean, Theresa May beat him despite actively sabotaging herself.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
No I don't really drink. Davey has made a nuanced case.
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
I think the tories were idiots to make him PM. And idiots to get rid of him.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
If the criteria is party prospects at the next election I agree they probably should have kept him. But if you go with that criteria why do you think they were idiots to make him PM? Because that's exactly why they did it. They picked him to win the next election and he duly delivered.
Any competent Tory leadership candidate, back in ‘19 could have beaten Corbyn and won back their majority. They just had to loosen up on austerity and follow the midlands and north electoral strategy that was obvious, post 2016. It didn’t have to be Johnson.
There were better candidates.
I mean, Theresa May beat him despite actively sabotaging herself.
I’m just reading Nick Timothy’s account of the 2017 election. It’s even more cringeworthy than I remember.
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
Is doing their job when the Minister is incompetent being “in open revolt”?
Doing their job would be a nice change - the current Civil Service is the most useless in history. The open revolt lies in the fact that they are flapping their gums about Ministers to anyone who will listen.
The Government is the most useless in history, but I think that represents the people at the top, the politicians, rather than the civil servants.
The complete lack of productivity across civil service departments cannot all be blamed on Ministers; though they have certainly failed to take it in hand.
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
Is doing their job when the Minister is incompetent being “in open revolt”?
Doing their job would be a nice change - the current Civil Service is the most useless in history. The open revolt lies in the fact that they are flapping their gums about Ministers to anyone who will listen.
The Government is the most useless in history, but I think that represents the people at the top, the politicians, rather than the civil servants.
The complete lack of productivity across civil service departments cannot all be blamed on Ministers; though they have certainly failed to take it in hand.
Which figures are you looking at for civil service productivity?
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
No I don't really drink. Davey has made a nuanced case.
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
There aren't really nuances though, are there?
Granted, some unfortunate men might not have a penis. They might have lost it in an unfortunate accident. But no women have penises. Men who are planning to undergo a sex change have a penis. But they're not women until they get it removed - i.e. have the operation. They might be 'living as women'. But they aren't women. Come on, we all know this is true. It might make some men sad to tell them they're not actually women. But that doesn't change the truth of it. None of this would have been at all controversial 12 years ago. What has changed?
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
No I don't really drink. Davey has made a nuanced case.
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
"Do you think women can have a penis?" is the most passive aggressive question ever. Saying "Yes" is the best way of dealing with this behaviour.
It's that once in a month instance when he's right. The British people are getting very tired of their senior politicians blaming everyone else for their own mistakes. High office brings responsibility. Not licence to constantly say “it wasn’t me guv”.
I did l ike Guido's disingenuous take on the Boris issue, which we see a lot, which was basically 'No one is above the law, but this looks like vindicticeness'. So...basically some peopel are above the law, since even if (and its only if) a law was breached, punishment is vindictive.
It's the plaintive cry of "It's not fair", when in fact it is fair to face consequences.
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
No I don't really drink. Davey has made a nuanced case.
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
There aren't really nuances though, are there?
Granted, some unfortunate men might not have a penis. They might have lost it in an unfortunate accident. But no women have penises. Men who are planning to undergo a sex change have a penis. But they're not women until they get it removed - i.e. have the operation. They might be 'living as women'. But they aren't women. Come on, we all know this is true. It might make some men sad to tell them they're not actually women. But that doesn't change the truth of it. None of this would have been at all controversial 12 years ago. What has changed?
AIUI, there is a tiny proportion of people for whom there is genuine biological ambiguity.
We’re only talking about a few thousand people, though.
@PippaCrerar Friends of Boris Johnson say he is “seriously considering” legal action against Cabinet Office, adding it is “seriously defamatory” to suggest he had further breached lockdown laws @MailOnline
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
No I don't really drink. Davey has made a nuanced case.
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
There aren't really nuances though, are there?
Granted, some unfortunate men might not have a penis. They might have lost it in an unfortunate accident. But no women have penises. Men who are planning to undergo a sex change have a penis. But they're not women until they get it removed - i.e. have the operation. They might be 'living as women'. But they aren't women. Come on, we all know this is true. It might make some men sad to tell them they're not actually women. But that doesn't change the truth of it. None of this would have been at all controversial 12 years ago. What has changed?
In terms of legally defined gender, there are women with penises and men with uteri. That's because you can change your legal gender without having surgery.
So yes, men can have uteri and women can have penises. Don't like that? Get the law changed. Til then, tough luck.
Expert banned from UK government event for tweets that criticised Tories Dan Kaszeta is one of at least eight speakers banned by opaque vetting scheme in ‘attack on free speech’ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/dan-kaszeta-banned-from-uk-government-event-for-tweets-criticised-tories … Dan Kaszeta is one of at least eight speakers banned from government events by an opaque vetting scheme introduced by Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2022, a policy that the banned expert described as an attack on free speech.
Kaszeta said: “I’m not a revolutionary communist. I’m a Lib Dem.” He said he had no detailed explanation as to which posts had led to him being disinvited from addressing a specialist event that began on Tuesday...
Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-musk-ron-desantis-2024-twitter/674149/ … In December, I argued that if we are to judge Musk strictly by his actions as Twitter’s owner, it is accurate to call him a far-right activist. As a public figure, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the right’s culture war against progressivism—which he refers to as “the woke mind virus”—and his $44 billion Twitter purchase can easily be seen as an explicitly political act to advance this specific ideology. Now the site itself has unquestionably transformed under his leadership into an alternative social-media platform—one that offers a haven to far-right influencers and advances the interests, prejudices, and conspiracy theories of the right wing of American politics.
Earlier today, NBC News reported that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is slated to kick off his 2024 presidential campaign in a Twitter Spaces event with Musk. Twitter, quite literally, is a launch pad for right-wing political leaders. Also today, The Daily Wire, the conservative-media juggernaut that is home to Ben Shapiro as well as the political commentators Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles, who are known for arguing against trans rights, announced it would bring its entire slate of podcasts to Twitter starting next week. And earlier this month, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced that he would take his prime-time-show format—a dog-whistling broadcast style known for its fearmongering and bigotry——to Musk’s platform.…
Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-musk-ron-desantis-2024-twitter/674149/ … In December, I argued that if we are to judge Musk strictly by his actions as Twitter’s owner, it is accurate to call him a far-right activist. As a public figure, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the right’s culture war against progressivism—which he refers to as “the woke mind virus”—and his $44 billion Twitter purchase can easily be seen as an explicitly political act to advance this specific ideology. Now the site itself has unquestionably transformed under his leadership into an alternative social-media platform—one that offers a haven to far-right influencers and advances the interests, prejudices, and conspiracy theories of the right wing of American politics.
Earlier today, NBC News reported that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is slated to kick off his 2024 presidential campaign in a Twitter Spaces event with Musk. Twitter, quite literally, is a launch pad for right-wing political leaders. Also today, The Daily Wire, the conservative-media juggernaut that is home to Ben Shapiro as well as the political commentators Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles, who are known for arguing against trans rights, announced it would bring its entire slate of podcasts to Twitter starting next week. And earlier this month, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced that he would take his prime-time-show format—a dog-whistling broadcast style known for its fearmongering and bigotry——to Musk’s platform.…
Except most of the tweeters are still liberal left
Lovely to see all the people who said Johnson was a superb PM whilst he was ahead now saying he is a disgrace.
It was obvious before he was PM this would happen.
I think the tories were idiots to make him PM. And idiots to get rid of him.
I accept, I’m probably the only person in Britain with this view…
If the criteria is party prospects at the next election I agree they probably should have kept him. But if you go with that criteria why do you think they were idiots to make him PM? Because that's exactly why they did it. They picked him to win the next election and he duly delivered.
Any competent Tory leadership candidate, back in ‘19 could have beaten Corbyn and won back their majority. They just had to loosen up on austerity and follow the midlands and north electoral strategy that was obvious, post 2016. And use their media allies to go hard on corbyn.
It didn’t have to be Johnson.
There were better candidates. Johnson’s flaws were so damn obvious.
Ah ok so that makes logical sense of your statement then. I disagree though. I think another leader (Hunt say) could have won but not by as much. Quite a few people in key seats considered they were voting 'Boris' rather than Tory in 2019. Also the election itself was forced by Johnson, in the process creating the People v Parliament and Get Brexit Done dynamic which proved so potent. I hated it but at the same time recognize it as a truly brilliant political coup. And ok, Cummings was the brains but Johnson had to execute and front it. The Cons were in deep shit when he took over in July 2019. Hung parliament and behind in the polls. Five months later he delivers a landslide. An amazing achievement.
Twitter Is a Far-Right Social Network https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-musk-ron-desantis-2024-twitter/674149/ … In December, I argued that if we are to judge Musk strictly by his actions as Twitter’s owner, it is accurate to call him a far-right activist. As a public figure, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the right’s culture war against progressivism—which he refers to as “the woke mind virus”—and his $44 billion Twitter purchase can easily be seen as an explicitly political act to advance this specific ideology. Now the site itself has unquestionably transformed under his leadership into an alternative social-media platform—one that offers a haven to far-right influencers and advances the interests, prejudices, and conspiracy theories of the right wing of American politics.
Earlier today, NBC News reported that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is slated to kick off his 2024 presidential campaign in a Twitter Spaces event with Musk. Twitter, quite literally, is a launch pad for right-wing political leaders. Also today, The Daily Wire, the conservative-media juggernaut that is home to Ben Shapiro as well as the political commentators Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles, who are known for arguing against trans rights, announced it would bring its entire slate of podcasts to Twitter starting next week. And earlier this month, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced that he would take his prime-time-show format—a dog-whistling broadcast style known for its fearmongering and bigotry——to Musk’s platform.…
Except most of the tweeters are still liberal left
Why do politicians keep being asked about penises?
Can't we mature the debate a bit?
Because politicians keep saying that women have them.
They keep being ASKED if they do, Ed Davey didn't bring it up.
How would you field this question? How would you feel if you were a trans person who really felt they were a woman with the way they are talked about? Why can't we have a more mature conversation and look at this with some kindness and sympathy.
Davey (and Starmer) knows he’s going to be asked the question, and has known for years that he’ll be asked the question.
Yet he still doesn’t have anything close to a coherent answer on the subject.
If and when he has a straight answer, the line of questioning would stop.
I’ve some sympathy for them. It’s a hideously divisive and thorny topic. But then it’s their own mad woke identity politics that have led them here so that sympathy is limited
It's not really, though, is it?
Women don't have penises.
Sir Ed Davey assured me on Nick Ferrari's show that they do. So who do I believe you or Ed Davey? A Knight of the Realm or some herbert who posts on PB.
One the sauce tonight? Why are you talking shite or are you on a wind up?
No I don't really drink. Davey has made a nuanced case.
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
There aren't really nuances though, are there?
Granted, some unfortunate men might not have a penis. They might have lost it in an unfortunate accident. But no women have penises. Men who are planning to undergo a sex change have a penis. But they're not women until they get it removed - i.e. have the operation. They might be 'living as women'. But they aren't women. Come on, we all know this is true. It might make some men sad to tell them they're not actually women. But that doesn't change the truth of it. None of this would have been at all controversial 12 years ago. What has changed?
In terms of legally defined gender, there are women with penises and men with uteri. That's because you can change your legal gender without having surgery.
So yes, men can have uteri and women can have penises. Don't like that? Get the law changed. Til then, tough luck.
You could make a law declaring the sky to be green or abolishing the law of gravity. Wouldn't make it true though.
Comments
I do have some sympathy with the sentiment. It must be very hard to be an MP who the civil service dislike politically.
But Boris has it coming. There are thousands of people who broke the rules during lockdown - the idiotic, illiberal rules he was responsible for - who haven't been indulgently let off the hook. He has only himself to blame.
🔥
Senior Tory source tells me: “There is now an open witch hunt against right wingers in the Conservative Party.
“The leadership of the party must shut this down immediately.
“Active conversations are underway among MPs about how to respond to this and nothing is off the table.”
If you only want houses built in places where there's a surplus of empty schools, roads and other infrastructure then that's absolutely nowhere so not building anything near anyone. Totally bananas.
Infrastructure might not exist where houses are built. Oh well, get the infrastructure dealt with then, wherever it ends up being needed.
Developers aren't paying for the sewerage. Why should the public do so? Private water companies sure don't.
All lockdown does is temporarily reduce cases, then you remove lockdown the virus is still there again, so if you are controlling it via lockdowns you inevitably end up locked down again.
The virus was all over Europe. No densely populated country in Europe locked down 'early' and had a shorter lockdown as a result, in fact the UK came out of the final lockdown while far too late actually much earlier than any other nation that locked down.
Or can you think of any densely populated nation in Europe that went into lockdown sooner like you wanted and lifted their final lockdown before the UK did?
**Statement on behalf of Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP**
**for immediate use, attributable to his office**
The assertion by the Cabinet Office that there have been further Covid rule breaches is totally untrue.
Lawyers have examined the events in question and advised that they were lawful.
No contact was made with Mr Johnson before these incorrect allegations were made both to the police and to the Privileges Committee. This is both bizarre and unacceptable.
For whatever political purpose, it is plain that a last ditch attempt is being made to lengthen the Privileges Committee investigation as it was coming to a conclusion and to undermine Mr Johnson.
Mr Johnson’s lawyers have tonight written to the police forces involved to explain in detail why the Cabinet Office is entirely wrong in its assertions.
The events in question were all within the rules either because they were held outdoors or came within another lawful exception. They include regular meetings with civil servants and advisers.
It appears some within government have decided to make unfounded suggestions both to the police and to the Privileges Committee.
Many will conclude that this has all the hallmarks of yet another politically motivated stitch up.
-- So Bozo won't admit to be wrong even when lawyers know things are as dodgy as f***
If the roads need to be worked on, get it done.
Deal with it and life goes on, not the end of the world.
Its not possible to have a growing population and new houses built only where it won't inconvenience anyone, that's impossible.
I want big orgies with ai_list celebrities, or be_list would be fine. Hell, even a single ce_list representative would do.
The excuses about infrastructure to excuse NIMBYism are just that, an excuse.
If a young couple and their two children all live in one crowded room in one of the adults own parents home because that is all the can find to live in, then does their shit magically not stick or need to be flushed? Do the kids magically not need to go to school?
If that young family suddenly have a house of their own near to their parents home, then the demands at the local school, or for sewerage etc, are not significantly altered at all. But their quality of life is.
If you want to start deporting people to get rid of effluence and children from schools etc, then make that case. But if you want people to live in this country, they need a home first, and we need to deal with any externalities after - not use externalities as an excuse to have people live in squalor without a home of their own.
How on earth will Rishi Sunak respond to this challenge?
It is a huge test of the PM’a authority and also backbench support for Boris Johnson over the next 48 hours.
@sturdyAlex
I seem to recall Pac-Man was the good guy which makes them fruits and ghosts.
By the way, @christopherhope's feed is HILARIOUS. It's one hysterical mass of Johnson apologia. Including a defence by his sister and one by his spokesperson, presented as if they are mic drop scoops.
election.
But its not about the number of houses. Houses don't create shit, people do. 12 people living in one home generate the same amount of shit as 4 people living in 3 homes.
Or have we just not been on at the same time for a while?
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/23/tate-britain-rehang-review-this-is-now-the-museum-where-art-goes-to-sleep
And shops will open up wherever there's new demand, and so should anything else. It shouldn't be micromanaged or planned with developments, it should happen organically.
I live in a substantial new development, in an area surrounded by other substantial new developments. I do my shopping in supermarkets that didn't exist two years ago, but unsurprisingly have been built as the shopping chains want to place themselves in easy access to where their customers live.
There are no shops on my estate, but there are shops I can drive to, so problem solved. New or old housing, I've never lived on an estate with a supermarket within the estate come to think of it.
One Rishi source echoing Boris allies blaming out of control civil service "chucking shit" at anyone they can. Tories seem enfeebled by blob insurrection.
EXCL: Suella Braverman's Home Office civil servants have been forced to “fact-check” the home secretary’s statements to cabinet on up to six occasions - @breeallegretti & co reveal
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1661112097587994649
Publicly blame your employees for your own incompetence and failings and they push back.
Whatever next?
NEW💥
One former Tory Cabinet minister texts me tonight: "I didn't really believe in the 'blob' till now.
"But the events of the last few days - the repeated briefing against Suella and now tonight's action against Boris - are beginning to make me think again. 1/2
@christopherhope
Former Cabinet minister [continued]: "If the PM's team is somehow encouraging all this they need to back off fast, and if they are not they need to take some some tough action for once against civil servants who are leaking against ministers." 2/2
Oh, Rishi needs to take some tough action right enough...
1) Government. Blair found cancelling road projects, for example, very useful. So that money could be spent on schools and hospitals.
2) Businesses. See the water companies.
3) NIMBYs
4) Greens
So you get a massive coalition against…. Everything.
You get housing built because of the huge pressure, but not the infrastructure.
When the infrastructure for dealing with sewage discharges comes up for planning review, those loudest about it, will fight the hardest to stop the problem being fixed.
A properly designed estate should look like this -
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/judgedredd/images/b/bc/640px-Dredd-Film-City-View.png
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations
A lot of Victorian public works were funded by such mechanisms. For examples, chunks of the Thames embankments were done by selling permission to a group of businessmen. Who would then build the river wall. The fill behind was rubble and earth from house building locally. Free dumping until full.
Then they had a chunk of new land to sell on… often the councils would get a chunk of the land as well.
So unfair!
SAD!
(That's one happy @rcs1000 )
It didn’t have to be Johnson.
There were better candidates. Johnson’s flaws were so damn obvious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWfVfwz7rTM
I do accept concerns with women only spaces and that needs to be addressed.
Fair play to Davey he answered the question directly. Something that Ferrari reminded us Starmer couldn't bring himself so to do.
Admittedly that must become pretty frustrating for those working under Braverman. And most of the rest of the cabinet.
Granted, some unfortunate men might not have a penis. They might have lost it in an unfortunate accident.
But no women have penises.
Men who are planning to undergo a sex change have a penis. But they're not women until they get it removed - i.e. have the operation. They might be 'living as women'. But they aren't women.
Come on, we all know this is true. It might make some men sad to tell them they're not actually women. But that doesn't change the truth of it.
None of this would have been at all controversial 12 years ago. What has changed?
Tory source: “Sunak is letting Tories get decimated on his watch by the blob.
“Raab, Suella, now Boris again - when is this crap going to stop? It's time for Sunak to grow some balls”
Cancel BoZo legal aid.
Tell the others he will call an election if they don't shut up.
That would be the ballsy thing to do...
The British people are getting very tired of their senior politicians blaming everyone else for their own mistakes. High office brings responsibility. Not licence to constantly say “it wasn’t me guv”.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1661070231496687616?cxt=HHwWgICw9eSkp40uAAAA
I did l ike Guido's disingenuous take on the Boris issue, which we see a lot, which was basically 'No one is above the law, but this looks like vindicticeness'. So...basically some peopel are above the law, since even if (and its only if) a law was breached, punishment is vindictive.
It's the plaintive cry of "It's not fair", when in fact it is fair to face consequences.
We’re only talking about a few thousand people, though.
Friends of Boris Johnson say he is “seriously considering” legal action against Cabinet Office, adding it is “seriously defamatory” to suggest he had further breached lockdown laws @MailOnline
So yes, men can have uteri and women can have penises. Don't like that? Get the law changed. Til then, tough luck.
Expert banned from UK government event for tweets that criticised Tories
Dan Kaszeta is one of at least eight speakers banned by opaque vetting scheme in ‘attack on free speech’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/dan-kaszeta-banned-from-uk-government-event-for-tweets-criticised-tories
… Dan Kaszeta is one of at least eight speakers banned from government events by an opaque vetting scheme introduced by Jacob Rees-Mogg in 2022, a policy that the banned expert described as an attack on free speech.
Kaszeta said: “I’m not a revolutionary communist. I’m a Lib Dem.” He said he had no detailed explanation as to which posts had led to him being disinvited from addressing a specialist event that began on Tuesday...
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1661102736740597760?s=20
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-musk-ron-desantis-2024-twitter/674149/
… In December, I argued that if we are to judge Musk strictly by his actions as Twitter’s owner, it is accurate to call him a far-right activist. As a public figure, he has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the right’s culture war against progressivism—which he refers to as “the woke mind virus”—and his $44 billion Twitter purchase can easily be seen as an explicitly political act to advance this specific ideology. Now the site itself has unquestionably transformed under his leadership into an alternative social-media platform—one that offers a haven to far-right influencers and advances the interests, prejudices, and conspiracy theories of the right wing of American politics.
Earlier today, NBC News reported that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is slated to kick off his 2024 presidential campaign in a Twitter Spaces event with Musk. Twitter, quite literally, is a launch pad for right-wing political leaders. Also today, The Daily Wire, the conservative-media juggernaut that is home to Ben Shapiro as well as the political commentators Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles, who are known for arguing against trans rights, announced it would bring its entire slate of podcasts to Twitter starting next week. And earlier this month, the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson announced that he would take his prime-time-show format—a dog-whistling broadcast style known for its fearmongering and bigotry——to Musk’s platform.…
Barman says "Not Yew Tree again"
Goodnight
No10 reject the suggestion the PM is “dithering” over Braverman.
@MrHarryCole
13 hours till PMQs..
1)Higher growth than expected
2)More borrowing than expected
Is the government spending more than expected? Is it failing to raise the expected revenue?