An obvious gag, but it is the case that Trump can sometimes be genuinely funny. Intentionally so, since he is also often inconveniently funny unintentionally.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Exactly what Brexit allows us to do!
Yes let’s get phone masts built quickly and everywhere. Planning permission should be totally ignored for key infrastructure.
Another one who has no idea what the purpose of planning permission is.
Hi. The mast they wanted to build next to my flat was rejected because it causes cancer. I read the planning documents.
In which case if it was really that important to the phone company they would have gone through the fast track appeal system and got it overturned in less time than it takes to actually put one of the things up. The system recognises that there are idiots in local government and is designed to prevent them holding stuff up. I have been involved in some of these on the side of quarrying companies when spurious claims of archaological significance are made and the record for a turn around was 2 weeks.
Blatently stupid decisions are the easy ones to deal with.
I'd be careful there - quarries are a real specialist niche with incredibly different rules to elsewhere...
I know. They fall under the Minerals Act. But it is just quarries I have been involved in. Petrol stations and service areas, housing developments - including the Newark Growth Point where they actually used my evidence as part of the planning to ensure that potential sites were properly investigated - and all manner of other types of development. I do a lot of this stuff - perhaps because I have a reputation for not being a knee jerk opponent. This means that I can see that sadly CHB is talking rubbish.
The planning sstem is not there to prevent development nor in the overwhelming majority of cases does it. It is there to ensure that development does the least damage possible and creates structures which are actually fit for purpose.
But it is much easier for developers to blame the planning system than actually address the real reasons forthe lack of building.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
A general point about immigration: The official debate in the US is often dominated by economists who, I think, often miss the importance of character. I know, of course, that assessing character, or even agreeing on what is good character is harder than assessing wealth, or earning potential. But I think we in the US ought to try harder to do that, when deciding who to admit.
Or, if money is all that matters to us, then perhaps we should be open about that, and just auction off a certain number of permits ("green cards" in the US) each year. (Would some libertarians like that? I suspect so.)
...So long as the sum was set appropriately*...
Auction them. Cash up front, no touts, sell to individuals
An obvious gag, but it is the case that Trump can sometimes be genuinely funny. Intentionally so, since he is also often inconveniently funny unintentionally.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
An obvious gag, but it is the case that Trump can sometimes be genuinely funny. Intentionally so, since he is also often inconveniently funny unintentionally.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
Well planning permission can be for a whole site, and the houses will be built in stages.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
Well planning permission can be for a whole site, and the houses will be built in stages.
But that doesn't work because if that were the case then the houses that were not built in one year would be completed in the next - or the one after that. To consistently build only 60% of the houses that have planning permission over a decade cannot be due to the fact that developments take time. What we see is an ever increasing number of unfulfilled planning permissions.
This is why we need Local authorities to have the power to tax undeveloped land which has been granted planning permission or ultimately to take that land away and give it to a builder who will actually build houses.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Yep I don't disagree with you at all about that. But then you aren't the one saying it is all the fault of planning laws.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
Well planning permission can be for a whole site, and the houses will be built in stages.
True, but the number increases ever more. Anything beyond putting the spade in the ground to formally kick things off can and often is delayed beyond any rational basis.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
An obvious gag, but it is the case that Trump can sometimes be genuinely funny. Intentionally so, since he is also often inconveniently funny unintentionally.
Written for him on this occasion (note the lack of ALL CAPS). He picked up another Florida Rep's endorsement today.
I laid DeSantis a bit. No strong conviction yet, though. (Nor has Trump, but that remains a real possibility.)
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
A landbanking penalty would only target where planning permission has already been given, and would give cash-strapped councils a new source of revenue, so I don't see much parliamentary resistance there. Revising Natural England's parameters so that they are no longer holding back 160,000 homes from being built would be another easy win, and a 'Brexit benefit'. Again, it would only focus where, in theory, councils have already given permission. 'It's all tooooo haaaaard' is the rallying cry of the Sunak Government. It's simply the worst Government we've ever had.
Chief Superintendent Tom Budd said: “The sentence handed down today follows a challenging and complex investigation against one of our serving officers which uncovered the web of lies Aston had constructed purely because she knew the impact it would have on Mr Taylor. As well as having to serve time in prison, Mr Taylor also lost his job as a police officer and his reputation was left in tatters as a result of her lies.
“The messages between them showed that she was telling him one thing – that she didn’t want to support a prosecution and that she loved him and couldn’t live without him – while she was telling police something completely different by saying he had contacted her and turned up at various locations unwanted, including one of the addresses she said she had to move to in order to get away from him.
If you pitch your tent early as a performative outsider or caricature, you will find it very difficult to operate in a more 'official' way when you want - people don't buy it, and opponents have no reason to play along.
It's why the most media hungry politicians often lack any credibility or respect (unless they are a rare talent), it's why Rees-Mogg never really fitted as a senior Minister and why Steve Baker regrets his 'Brexit Hard Man' self labelling.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
A landbanking penalty would only target where planning permission has already been given, and would give cash-strapped councils a new source of revenue, so I don't see much parliamentary resistance there. Revising Natural England's parameters so that they are no longer holding back 160,000 homes from being built would be another easy win, and a 'Brexit benefit'. Again, it would only focus where, in theory, councils have already given permission. 'It's all tooooo haaaaard' is the rallying cry of the Sunak Government. It's simply the worst Government we've ever had.
I'm at the point where I cannot even predict parliamentary resistance on such matters. When the general public and local politicians will resist for the most trivial or absurd reasons nothign surprises anymore.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
But of course you were right, Brexit has had a negative impact on the German economy. Not sure why that would be a point in Brexit's favour.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
Indeed. And we know that is a fact because when the ONS and IMF were predicting the UK would go into recession everyone was screaming about it being because of Brexit. This is not supposition. We saw it happen.
Pre-Ukraine it was about 40p/therm. Now 58p - the futures top out at 130p.
Don’t expect domestic energy bills to go back to where they used to be, though. Sunak’s bright idea is taxing us, via our bills in order to subsidise Tata.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
The proposals a few years ago were worked up by Dominic Cummings when he fell out of favour. The rumour was that he got sent to work on planning reform to hasten his demise, and it probably worked.
Trying to 'fix planning' is like trying to fix the tax system or the welfare state. A massive task.
Chief Superintendent Tom Budd said: “The sentence handed down today follows a challenging and complex investigation against one of our serving officers which uncovered the web of lies Aston had constructed purely because she knew the impact it would have on Mr Taylor. As well as having to serve time in prison, Mr Taylor also lost his job as a police officer and his reputation was left in tatters as a result of her lies.
“The messages between them showed that she was telling him one thing – that she didn’t want to support a prosecution and that she loved him and couldn’t live without him – while she was telling police something completely different by saying he had contacted her and turned up at various locations unwanted, including one of the addresses she said she had to move to in order to get away from him.
No mention of what happens to the poor sod who appears to have been the real victim in all of this, lost his job and ended up in jail.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
The proposals a few years ago were worked up by Dominic Cummings when he fell out of favour. The rumour was that he got sent to work on planning reform to hasten his demise, and it probably worked.
Trying to 'fix planning' is like trying to fix the tax system or the welfare state. A massive task.
Mostly because it is asking the wrong question. When it coems to inreasing house building it isn't the planning system that first and foremost needs fixing but the way developers abuse it.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
The proposals a few years ago were worked up by Dominic Cummings when he fell out of favour. The rumour was that he got sent to work on planning reform to hasten his demise, and it probably worked.
Trying to 'fix planning' is like trying to fix the tax system or the welfare state. A massive task.
It is, but with time and a big majority it is managable. There appears to have been no Plan B, and Sunak is in such a weak position he's somehow gone backwards since then.
Chief Superintendent Tom Budd said: “The sentence handed down today follows a challenging and complex investigation against one of our serving officers which uncovered the web of lies Aston had constructed purely because she knew the impact it would have on Mr Taylor. As well as having to serve time in prison, Mr Taylor also lost his job as a police officer and his reputation was left in tatters as a result of her lies.
“The messages between them showed that she was telling him one thing – that she didn’t want to support a prosecution and that she loved him and couldn’t live without him – while she was telling police something completely different by saying he had contacted her and turned up at various locations unwanted, including one of the addresses she said she had to move to in order to get away from him.
Pre-Ukraine it was about 40p/therm. Now 58p - the futures top out at 130p.
Don’t expect domestic energy bills to go back to where they used to be, though. Sunak’s bright idea is taxing us, via our bills in order to subsidise Tata.
It's not just a subsidy for Tata - the new 'energy security' bill before parliament will add £118 to household energy bills to pay for carbon capture and other green bollocks. Absolute 'Let them eat cake' nuts during a cost of living crisis.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
But of course you were right, Brexit has had a negative impact on the German economy. Not sure why that would be a point in Brexit's favour.
So your claimis that Germany staying in the EU was affected badly enough by Brexit that they went into recession whereas the UK which actually left the EU wasn't affectd sufficiently to go into recession?
Doesn't exacty match the Remainer narrative of the last few years does it.
(To be honest I think Brexit has bugger all to do with it either way. The economic hit has been way overstated and it is primarily Germany's unfortunate but inevitable reliance on Russian energy that has been the main issue)
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
But of course you were right, Brexit has had a negative impact on the German economy. Not sure why that would be a point in Brexit's favour.
That’s missing the point. Remainers rejoice when British economic figures are the worst in Europe, because it proves Brexit was wrong. Inconvenient truth that elsewhere is doing worse does not fit their narrative.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
Indeed. And we know that is a fact because when the ONS and IMF were predicting the UK would go into recession everyone was screaming about it being because of Brexit. This is not supposition. We saw it happen.
The obsession with blaming Brexit or whether we avoid recession is incredibly damaging, though. We ARE underperforming economically, but not mostly, if at all, because we implementing the people's democratic wish.
It's because we tax and spend too much, restrict building too much, have substandard infrastructure and don't promote competition enough. Those are the problems we should be fixing. If we fixed them, the impact of leaving the Single Market either way would be marginal.
Florida governor @GovRonDeSantis says on @clayandbuck if he’s elected president that on his first day in office he will consider pardoning any January 6th defendant he believes was politically prosecuted from a member of the public all the way up to President Trump himself.
An obvious gag, but it is the case that Trump can sometimes be genuinely funny. Intentionally so, since he is also often inconveniently funny unintentionally.
DeSantis launch - worst since the Vasa?
Mary Rose?
No, to be fair to the MR, she had been in service OK for some time.
Florida governor @GovRonDeSantis says on @clayandbuck if he’s elected president that on his first day in office he will consider pardoning any January 6th defendant he believes was politically prosecuted from a member of the public all the way up to President Trump himself.
What a bloody weasel. Adding 'believes was politically prosecuted' is just pointless, either he thinks what they did was ok, or he doesn't, and he obviously does and like many GOPers will pardon those who sought to overthrow the established process of government. Patriotism!
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Ending "discrimination" by the EU? That's like saying that the UK discriminates in favour of existing subjects of HMtK when it comes to passports, etc.
Yes, end discrimination by the EU.
If you want the EU to be a single country, then that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make, but its not what a majority of this country ever wanted. And unless or until the EU becomes a single nation then when it comes to immigration into this country it was absolutely extremely discriminatory in the past with citizens of some other countries able to move here freely and draconian restrictions on non-EU migrants.
By having a level playing field people are treated more fairly regardless of nationality.
Since I oppose discrimination, I think a level playing field is a good thing.
False dichotomy. Allowing freedom of movement between given geographies is not EITHER a function of a single state OR discriminatory. There are sound reasons why different pairs of countries have different migration statuses, which are sometimes asymmetrical. A lot could depend on the level of economic integration between the countries. The EU's single-market approach requires freedom of movement of labour for citizens of member countries for perfectly sound reasons. It acknowledges that labour is part of that market.
Accusations of racism on here to support a particular point of view are risible.
Australia and NZ have FOM. Is that racist against countries with whom there is no similar arrangement? Only an utter nut job would argue thus.
It is also not necessarily racist to prefer lower immigration. Let us be honest that the volumes of migration since the late 90s have been unprecedentedly massive.
It’s true that Nigel Farage in particular flirted with racist tropes during the Brexit campaign, and xenophobia of various types, including outright racism, likely swung the vote to Brexit.
Brexiters have to live with that.
One of the biggest and most racist Leave lies was that Turkey would be imminently joining the EU and there’d be nothing we could do to stop that or Turkish citizens flooding into the country.
Maybe the “Turkey-EU Accession Conference” the week before the vote, might have influenced that particular campaign?
Yes, yes but we were all supposed to know that the EU were a lying shower of hypocritical bastards who didn't mean a word of it. Goes without saying.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
I agree that landbanking by large developers is an issue and should be targeted, but smaller builders have been affected by issues like the one posted above. A housing bill is needed, and if the Government were actually remotely interested in increasing the housing supply, there would be several easy wins.
Whilst there were problems with the proposals, Boris's retreat from his planning reforms (replacing them with...nothing) is one of the biggest missed opportunities of this government. It probably will take a government with a big majority to enact really significant changes which are needed, fighting the hordes of NIMBY MPs and councils, of greedy developers gaming the current system etc, and they've squandered the big majority. He could have given it another go.
The proposals a few years ago were worked up by Dominic Cummings when he fell out of favour. The rumour was that he got sent to work on planning reform to hasten his demise, and it probably worked.
Trying to 'fix planning' is like trying to fix the tax system or the welfare state. A massive task.
It is, but with time and a big majority it is managable. There appears to have been no Plan B, and Sunak is in such a weak position he's somehow gone backwards since then.
It's a double lock thing.
Any planning liberalisation needs a majority in Parliament and a majority in the ruling party. The first is necessary to win the vote in the Commons, the second is needed to get the vote to happen in the first case.
(As I've said before, that's the real reason that May couldn't get a sane Brexit through; a government depending on opposition votes for a flagship policy will fall and deserves to fall.)
Given that Conservatives have all the BackYard constituencies and a lot of the NIMBY electorate, party management means they can't do planning reform. Even Gove has recognised that. The only party with a chance of making this happen is one whose core electorate is young, urban and wanting to have a home. And give them their due, Starmer and Reeves seem to recognise the need.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
Well planning permission can be for a whole site, and the houses will be built in stages.
And in the meanwhile developers are sitting pretty on land that has increased its value - not becase of anything they have done, but because society, via local government, has given them permission to build there.
If society increases the value of something, then surely it has the right to claim back something in taxation.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Plus who cares about the "official Vote Leave campaign". Leave won because of racist shitbags. And the official Vote Leave campaign knew perfectly well and adapted their message to suit the racist shitbags. Or in certain cases the racist shitbags who wanted to appear as though they weren't actually racist shitbags.
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
The same bullshit that got Enoch Powell supporters through the day. Mealy mouthed excuses are just that and they know it.
“Our planning system is a dead hand on the tiller... Housebuilding, infrastructure, and business investment all grind to a halt... If Britain is to rebuild its industrial might, we must stop red tape from standing in the way of new industries and new jobs."
Spot on.
Shit. You would hope that senior Labour MPs would have some concept of what planning permisison is and the effect it has on infrastructure and housebuilding (clue - fuck all). Another one looking for cheap points to score that will have absolutely no effect on how quickly things get built.
You're so full of shit that planning permission has fuck all effect on housebuilding. Because you think after 10 years of planning appeals a housebuilder might be able get permission does not mean that it has no impact on the development.
You have been shot down over this so many times BR that I am amazed you have the audacity to even raise it again. You always talk bollocks over planning and get hauled up for it I would have thought you would have learnt your lesson by now.
Natural England has banned 160,000 homes from being built on the basis that they calculate it will add more phosphates to rivers - that will certainly be having a significant impact. There's no way Labour will do anything about it though.
According to the LGA as of 2021 there were over 1.1 million houses that had been granted planning permission in the previous decade but had not been built. The Government target for housebuilding was 300,000 a year and every year since 2016 planning permission was granted for far more than that but the builders would not build. In 2018 alone they granted permission for 384,000 houses and only 214,000 were built.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
House builders of course are not charities; and the voting population is split between those who want policies that keep houses expensive (which scarcity achieves) and those who don't.
In a free market house builders are going to seek policies which both enhance prices and profitability and give them a sustained long term future.
The builders are also constrained by availability of a multitude of skills. There isn't a hidden massive pool of skilled people in housebuilding leaning on a tree smoking rollups awaiting the call.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Plus who cares about the "official Vote Leave campaign". Leave won because of racist shitbags. And the official Vote Leave campaign knew perfectly well and adapted their message to suit the racist shitbags. Or in certain cases the racist shitbags who wanted to appear as though they weren't actually racist shitbags.
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
The same bullshit that got Enoch Powell supporters through the day. Mealy mouthed excuses are just that and they know it.
“I voted for a more-immigration Brexit” is the new “I vos fighting on ze Eastern front.”
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
I can’t blame cynics and curmudgeons, they are present in every society at all times.
We just have a “system” that provides the wrong incentives and vetos.
Tyndall thinks it is the housebuilders, but he hasn’t seemed to realise yet that “planning system” and “housebuilding industry” are highly symbiotic…
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Plus who cares about the "official Vote Leave campaign". Leave won because of racist shitbags. And the official Vote Leave campaign knew perfectly well and adapted their message to suit the racist shitbags. Or in certain cases the racist shitbags who wanted to appear as though they weren't actually racist shitbags.
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
The same bullshit that got Enoch Powell supporters through the day. Mealy mouthed excuses are just that and they know it.
“I voted for a more-immigration Brexit” is the new “I vos fighting on ze Eastern front.”
"Oooh, Zey call me ze Camp Commandant, I don't know why."
I agree with the government that 600K a year immigration is not sustainable. I agree we need to do something about it. That does not involve obsessing with small boats. It involves addressing our chronic skill shortages and the need to invest in our own people rather than simply importing people trained at someone else's expense.
I accept this is at least a medium term problem, possibly a long term one. I accept until such time as we address it we will need high levels of immigration. But I expect my government to be doing something about it: incentivising training and investment; making the importation of cheap labour less economically attractive by making those who use it more responsible for the consequential societal costs and accepting the consequences of such a policy by investing in both house building and infrastructure.
Governments which simply deplore high immigration without addressing the underlying causes are a waste of space and time. Unfortunately, I struggle to find any party that takes this even remotely seriously.
Pre-Ukraine it was about 40p/therm. Now 58p - the futures top out at 130p.
Don’t expect domestic energy bills to go back to where they used to be, though. Sunak’s bright idea is taxing us, via our bills in order to subsidise Tata.
It's not just a subsidy for Tata - the new 'energy security' bill before parliament will add £118 to household energy bills to pay for carbon capture and other green bollocks. Absolute 'Let them eat cake' nuts during a cost of living crisis.
“Delivering on the ‘British Industry Supercharger’, we will ensure that Energy Intensive Industries (EIIs) remain profitable by compensating them for a portion of their network charging costs.”
Why is it UK government policy to ensure that Tata makes a profit for their shareholders?
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
In fairness to us, screwing up planning isn't just a British phenomenon. I'm in California now, and the restrictions on development around San Francisco are just as bad as ours. But of course in America planning (or "zoning") is mostly local, with some input from the states, so pro-growth areas can do their own thing to a much greater extent than in the UK.
Still, in America, the average size of a new house is 2,200 square feet, while in the UK it's 800 square feet, so they must be doing something right overall.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Plus who cares about the "official Vote Leave campaign". Leave won because of racist shitbags. And the official Vote Leave campaign knew perfectly well and adapted their message to suit the racist shitbags. Or in certain cases the racist shitbags who wanted to appear as though they weren't actually racist shitbags.
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
The same bullshit that got Enoch Powell supporters through the day. Mealy mouthed excuses are just that and they know it.
“I voted for a more-immigration Brexit” is the new “I vos fighting on ze Eastern front.”
It is so disingenuous it's embarrassing. If we'd wanted to invite immigrants from all over the world we could have done that in as many numbers as we wanted to. The EU didn't impact it at all. Furthermore we wouldn't have lost our own freedom of movement for which we gained nothing.
I agree with the government that 600K a year immigration is not sustainable. I agree we need to do something about it. That does not involve obsessing with small boats. It involves addressing our chronic skill shortages and the need to invest in our own people rather than simply importing people trained at someone else's expense.
I accept this is at least a medium term problem, possibly a long term one. I accept until such time as we address it we will need high levels of immigration. But I expect my government to be doing something about it: incentivising training and investment; making the importation of cheap labour less economically attractive by making those who use it more responsible for the consequential societal costs and accepting the consequences of such a policy by investing in both house building and infrastructure.
Governments which simply deplore high immigration without addressing the underlying causes are a waste of space and time. Unfortunately, I struggle to find any party that takes this even remotely seriously.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong spike it, although the last will run for a few years.
I'd expect the underlying rate to be about 400-450k pa, which is still too high but better.
Not sure how these students that net immigrate here and sort of go home but sort of don't affect it but if they are c.120k a year then you get to about 300-350k.
Probably 200-250k is sustainable long-term, within the bounds of infrastructure, housing and social change, so still a tad too high but not out of control.
Why is it UK government policy to ensure that Tata makes a profit for their shareholders?
Because Tata threatened to build it in the EU and the tories don't have the fortitude necessary to weather the adverse commentary resulting therefrom in the Telegraph and Daily Mail. It's that simple.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
It comes back to a central point: judicial review is a truly terrible idea that should be abandoned. The focus on process rather than substance is both intellectually dishonest and fundamentally pointless. What we need to focus on are substantive appeals. Was the decision actually right? Not correctly arrived at, with every box ticked, but right? If it was get on with it. If not look at it again.
I agree with the government that 600K a year immigration is not sustainable. I agree we need to do something about it. That does not involve obsessing with small boats. It involves addressing our chronic skill shortages and the need to invest in our own people rather than simply importing people trained at someone else's expense.
I accept this is at least a medium term problem, possibly a long term one. I accept until such time as we address it we will need high levels of immigration. But I expect my government to be doing something about it: incentivising training and investment; making the importation of cheap labour less economically attractive by making those who use it more responsible for the consequential societal costs and accepting the consequences of such a policy by investing in both house building and infrastructure.
Governments which simply deplore high immigration without addressing the underlying causes are a waste of space and time. Unfortunately, I struggle to find any party that takes this even remotely seriously.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong spike it, although the last will run for a few years.
I'd expect the underlying rate to be about 400-450k pa, which is still too high but better.
Not sure how these students that net immigrate here and sort of go home but sort of don't affect it but if they are c.120k a year then you get to about 300-350k.
Probably 200-250k is sustainable long-term, within the bounds of infrastructure, housing and social change, so still a tad too high but not out of control.
It would be great to see figures that net out students but I’ve never seen it clearly done.
I don’t think we know what is “sustainable”. Sustainability to me implies some kind of commitment on infrastructure and housing which governments can’t be arsed with.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
I can’t blame cynics and curmudgeons, they are present in every society at all times.
We just have a “system” that provides the wrong incentives and vetos.
Tyndall thinks it is the housebuilders, but he hasn’t seemed to realise yet that “planning system” and “housebuilding industry” are highly symbiotic…
Look at the figures I quoted. Every year there are far more planning permissions given than the Government requires and the developers only utilise 60% of them. 9 out of 10 applications for development are granted by councils without the need for appeal.
Bury your head in the sand if you like but the numbers speak gor themselves.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Plus who cares about the "official Vote Leave campaign". Leave won because of racist shitbags. And the official Vote Leave campaign knew perfectly well and adapted their message to suit the racist shitbags. Or in certain cases the racist shitbags who wanted to appear as though they weren't actually racist shitbags.
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
The same bullshit that got Enoch Powell supporters through the day. Mealy mouthed excuses are just that and they know it.
“I voted for a more-immigration Brexit” is the new “I vos fighting on ze Eastern front.”
Western Front shirly? Just a few 'policing actions' that got out of hand and massacres in the heat of action* compared to the full fat Faragist race war in the east.
*For the sake of clarity these were the bromides that the self deceiving twats fed themselves.
I agree with the government that 600K a year immigration is not sustainable. I agree we need to do something about it. That does not involve obsessing with small boats. It involves addressing our chronic skill shortages and the need to invest in our own people rather than simply importing people trained at someone else's expense.
I accept this is at least a medium term problem, possibly a long term one. I accept until such time as we address it we will need high levels of immigration. But I expect my government to be doing something about it: incentivising training and investment; making the importation of cheap labour less economically attractive by making those who use it more responsible for the consequential societal costs and accepting the consequences of such a policy by investing in both house building and infrastructure.
Governments which simply deplore high immigration without addressing the underlying causes are a waste of space and time. Unfortunately, I struggle to find any party that takes this even remotely seriously.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong spike it, although the last will run for a few years.
I'd expect the underlying rate to be about 400-450k pa, which is still too high but better.
Not sure how these students that net immigrate here and sort of go home but sort of don't affect it but if they are c.120k a year then you get to about 300-350k.
Probably 200-250k is sustainable long-term, within the bounds of infrastructure, housing and social change, so still a tad too high but not out of control.
It would be great to see figures that net out students but I’ve never seen it clearly done.
I don’t think we know what is “sustainable”. Sustainability to me implies some kind of commitment on infrastructure and housing which governments can’t be arsed with.
It seems to me that it is important to include students - to include everyone. Simply because to do so, both in and out, ensured the possibility of a more realistic figure.
Like a lot of people I don't trust the Home Office's competence. if students were generally excluded I think we would find that those who arrived uncounted and stayed - for perfectly good reasons and less good - would stay uncounted.
Indeed. And we know that is a fact because when the ONS and IMF were predicting the UK would go into recession everyone was screaming about it being because of Brexit. This is not supposition. We saw it happen.
Any news organisation parroting an economic forecast ought to have the decency to print a similarly prominent retraction when the forecast proves to be false. The smarter editors might eventually realise the economic forecasting is about as useful as tips for the horses. Economics is a great tool for discussing what has happened, but almost entirely useless for prediction.
Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has reason substantially to now over 500,000. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-65669832
"Note immigration has fallen below 100, 000 for EU net immigration post Brexit, it is non-EU immigration where it has risen substantially to now over 500,000".
Remain should have put that on the side of a bus.
It couldn't have done pre referendum. It is Brexit and the end of EU free movement that has reduced net EU immigration.
Though I take the view it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on Eastern European migration for 7 years in 2004 like Germany that won it for Leave. Had he done so it would probably have been Remain 52% Leave 48% rather than the reverse
It's ok - you are on the right side of history on this one. Sometimes it is worth being on a particular side just because of who is on the other side.
Despite all the PB Leavers falling over themselves to say how much they welcome immigration, nevertheless they hitched their trailer to quite a racist undertaking in the campaigns to leave the EU.
The official Vote Leave campaign made a point, quite a good one, that by controlling immigration we could end discrimination against non-Europeans and increase non-EU migration.
Which is exactly what has happened.
Yes Farage and co may have been racist shitbags, but so what? If a racist told you not to cross a level crossing while the red lights were flashing and a train was approaching would you say "well if you're telling me not to, I better had"?
Plus who cares about the "official Vote Leave campaign". Leave won because of racist shitbags. And the official Vote Leave campaign knew perfectly well and adapted their message to suit the racist shitbags. Or in certain cases the racist shitbags who wanted to appear as though they weren't actually racist shitbags.
You can applaud as much as you like the increase in non-EU immigration but your fellow travellers most certainly did not want more immigration.
Perhaps you, @Richard_Tyndall and six others purport to welcome immigration. The vast majority of Leave voters voted Leave to end/reduce immigration.
But whatever gets you through the day.
The same bullshit that got Enoch Powell supporters through the day. Mealy mouthed excuses are just that and they know it.
“I voted for a more-immigration Brexit” is the new “I vos fighting on ze Eastern front.”
Western Front shirly? Just a few 'policing actions' that got out of hand and massacres in the heat of action* compared to the full fat Faragist race war in the east.
*For the sake of clarity these were the bromides that the self deceiving twats fed themselves.
I love how nothing on flags and self-deception ever seems to apply when it comes to your own bonnie scheme.
Why is it UK government policy to ensure that Tata makes a profit for their shareholders?
Because Tata threatened to build it in the EU and the tories don't have the fortitude necessary to weather the adverse commentary resulting therefrom in the Telegraph and Daily Mail. It's that simple.
More accurately if the batteries went so would the actual car manufacturing and that could be 44,000 workers...
"Allies of Boris Johnson have been accused of preparing to block a motion to suspend the disgraced Scottish MP Margaret Ferrier, leading the government to postpone the vote in parliament.
It is believed that supporters of the former prime minister feared that a vote to suspend Ferrier for 30 days over a breach of Covid-19 rules could set a precedent if Johnson faced a similar vote."
Am not sure if this car hitting the Downing Street gates was planned or just a drunk driver? Looking at the way he was driving I think more the latter but obviously nothing confirmed
Florida governor @GovRonDeSantis says on @clayandbuck if he’s elected president that on his first day in office he will consider pardoning any January 6th defendant he believes was politically prosecuted from a member of the public all the way up to President Trump himself.
What a bloody weasel. Adding 'believes was politically prosecuted' is just pointless, either he thinks what they did was ok, or he doesn't, and he obviously does and like many GOPers will pardon those who sought to overthrow the established process of government. Patriotism!
DeSantis would be even worse than Trump. I’m not sure he’d have the beating of Biden either.
Checking the markets, Kennedy is still shortening - as tight as 14/1, insanely (91/5 on the exchanges).
I agree with the previous header that Haley (and probably Harris) are where the value bets are.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
I can’t blame cynics and curmudgeons, they are present in every society at all times.
We just have a “system” that provides the wrong incentives and vetos.
Tyndall thinks it is the housebuilders, but he hasn’t seemed to realise yet that “planning system” and “housebuilding industry” are highly symbiotic…
Look at the figures I quoted. Every year there are far more planning permissions given than the Government requires and the developers only utilise 60% of them. 9 out of 10 applications for development are granted by councils without the need for appeal.
Bury your head in the sand if you like but the numbers speak gor themselves.
But let's think about why that happens.
I can think of two ways that behaviour is rational. There may be others. One of them is probably healthy- get permission for a while neighbourhood at once the build it over a decade so that a local housing market isn't swamped. The other is more cynical- if you know housing supply is constrained, why not wait until 5 years time when you expect to sell your new houses for more?
If people (housebuilders here) are behaving badly, you can either force them to be nicer or work out why and tweak the incentives. The first only really works if you're Britain's Strictest Headmistress.
Florida governor @GovRonDeSantis says on @clayandbuck if he’s elected president that on his first day in office he will consider pardoning any January 6th defendant he believes was politically prosecuted from a member of the public all the way up to President Trump himself.
What a bloody weasel. Adding 'believes was politically prosecuted' is just pointless, either he thinks what they did was ok, or he doesn't, and he obviously does and like many GOPers will pardon those who sought to overthrow the established process of government. Patriotism!
DeSantis would be even worse than Trump. I’m not sure he’d have the beating of Biden either.
Checking the markets, Kennedy is still shortening - as tight as 14/1, insanely (91/5 on the exchanges).
I agree with the previous header that Haley (and probably Harris) are where the value bets are.
We should be so damn lucky that the last two are the candidates.
They're both relatively sane and neither is senile. So they've got no chance.
I can't think of any scenario where that occurs that doesn't actually involve at least one of honeytraps or poison by foreign intelligence agencies.
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Point of order: a recession is two negative quarters of growth. If they shrink again in Q2, they'll be in recession, albeit the PMIs suggest they probably won't.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
It comes back to a central point: judicial review is a truly terrible idea that should be abandoned. The focus on process rather than substance is both intellectually dishonest and fundamentally pointless. What we need to focus on are substantive appeals. Was the decision actually right? Not correctly arrived at, with every box ticked, but right? If it was get on with it. If not look at it again.
Interesting but not convinced. JR is a means in general of holding power to account. Those who inflict on us massive and complex regulation should not get away with breaking their own rules and short circuiting their own processes.
Secondly, on the whole the question is whether a decision is reasonable, lawful and rational rather than whether it is right. There are no such things as 'right' decisions.
So for example the concept of consultation is often key to decision making. You should not be able to attenuate that process just because a judge thinks you made the 'right' decision.
With democracy so populist and government so banal and arrogant, the right to hold power to account is especially important.
JR is like the secret ballot - one of those things that separates us from North Korea.
The UK has had a larger population than “France” for a long time. About 15 years ago the French decided to incorporate everyone in the DOM-TOMs in their stats to overcome their sense of demographic inadequacy
Part of me thinks Fuck it, let’s go for a UK of 100m people. Boss the rest of Europe just by being so much bigger
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
It comes back to a central point: judicial review is a truly terrible idea that should be abandoned. The focus on process rather than substance is both intellectually dishonest and fundamentally pointless. What we need to focus on are substantive appeals. Was the decision actually right? Not correctly arrived at, with every box ticked, but right? If it was get on with it. If not look at it again.
Interesting but not convinced. JR is a means in general of holding power to account. Those who inflict on us massive and complex regulation should not get away with breaking their own rules and short circuiting their own processes.
Secondly, on the whole the question is whether a decision is reasonable, lawful and rational rather than whether it is right. There are no such things as 'right' decisions.
So for example the concept of consultation is often key to decision making. You should not be able to attenuate that process just because a judge thinks you made the 'right' decision.
With democracy so populist and government so banal and arrogant, the right to hold power to account is especially important.
JR is like the secret ballot - one of those things that separates us from North Korea.
It also grinds us to a halt, as @Casino_Royale and others have pointed out. Often by ridiculously trivial means.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
It comes back to a central point: judicial review is a truly terrible idea that should be abandoned. The focus on process rather than substance is both intellectually dishonest and fundamentally pointless. What we need to focus on are substantive appeals. Was the decision actually right? Not correctly arrived at, with every box ticked, but right? If it was get on with it. If not look at it again.
Interesting but not convinced. JR is a means in general of holding power to account. Those who inflict on us massive and complex regulation should not get away with breaking their own rules and short circuiting their own processes.
Secondly, on the whole the question is whether a decision is reasonable, lawful and rational rather than whether it is right. There are no such things as 'right' decisions.
So for example the concept of consultation is often key to decision making. You should not be able to attenuate that process just because a judge thinks you made the 'right' decision.
With democracy so populist and government so banal and arrogant, the right to hold power to account is especially important.
JR is like the secret ballot - one of those things that separates us from North Korea.
It also grinds us to a halt, as @CasinoRoyale and others have pointed out. Often by ridiculously trivial means.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Our problem is we gold plate due-process and have loads of cynics and curmudgeonly types who are all too happy to invest all their time and energy in gaming the already turgid system to make it as slow as possible.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
I can’t blame cynics and curmudgeons, they are present in every society at all times.
We just have a “system” that provides the wrong incentives and vetos.
Tyndall thinks it is the housebuilders, but he hasn’t seemed to realise yet that “planning system” and “housebuilding industry” are highly symbiotic…
Look at the figures I quoted. Every year there are far more planning permissions given than the Government requires and the developers only utilise 60% of them. 9 out of 10 applications for development are granted by councils without the need for appeal.
Bury your head in the sand if you like but the numbers speak gor themselves.
No, they don’t.
Planning permission volume says nothing about the time and complexity of achieving permission, nor the incentives thereby delivered to house builders.
"Allies of Boris Johnson have been accused of preparing to block a motion to suspend the disgraced Scottish MP Margaret Ferrier, leading the government to postpone the vote in parliament.
It is believed that supporters of the former prime minister feared that a vote to suspend Ferrier for 30 days over a breach of Covid-19 rules could set a precedent if Johnson faced a similar vote."
Johnson is an absolute cancer that needs cutting out from the body politic.
Am I alone in thinking that this Downing Street "crash" is just another attempt by the Tories to distract from their immigration failures, Boris Johnson, #PartyGate Suella Braverman and other scandals?
The UK has had a larger population than “France” for a long time. About 15 years ago the French decided to incorporate everyone in the DOM-TOMs in their stats to overcome their sense of demographic inadequacy
Part of me thinks Fuck it, let’s go for a UK of 100m people. Boss the rest of Europe just by being so much bigger
I suggested, only half-mockingly, that we aim to surpass Germany by 2050.
The Empire Strikes Back (by migrating in large numbers to the metropole).
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Point of order: a recession is two negative quarters of growth. If they shrink again in Q2, they'll be in recession, albeit the PMIs suggest they probably won't.
They’ve just had 2 negative quarters of growth, I believe. = recession
Florida governor @GovRonDeSantis says on @clayandbuck if he’s elected president that on his first day in office he will consider pardoning any January 6th defendant he believes was politically prosecuted from a member of the public all the way up to President Trump himself.
Why is it UK government policy to ensure that Tata makes a profit for their shareholders?
Because Tata threatened to build it in the EU and the tories don't have the fortitude necessary to weather the adverse commentary resulting therefrom in the Telegraph and Daily Mail. It's that simple.
Every other advanced economy in the planet recognises they need a mass production battery industry. With the exception of a couple of nations who got it earlier than the rest (and even they subsidise), they takes a lot of money.
Despite the fossil fuel Luddites' protestations, it's a sensible investment.
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
I'd recommend this by the planning officers society. Goes beyond the idea of 'burn it all down and start again' and suggests things that can actually be delivered and could work. It is written by the most senior and experienced planners in local government.
". What POS asks is that government should stop pretending that house price inflation is mainly caused by the supply of housing, because it is not. Policies based on this thinking are fundamentally misplaced and do not address the real issues."
"What is clear is that building 300,000 homes per year hardly ever happens. It was nearly achieved in the mid-1950s and achieved during the early to the late 1960s. Throughout that time (1946 to the late 1970s) at least half of the supply was Council Housing. The private house-building sector rarely builds more than 150,000 homes per year, with recent output much less than that. ..The main crime of the housing crisis is that since the early 1990s, RSL housing is the only source of affordable housing, and the main source of subsidy is no longer from Government but from developers through §106 agreements. "
" It is clear that Local Authorities see the need for and are actively re-entering the business of Council house building. The need to do so is compelling yet supporting this obvious answer to the need to deliver more affordable housing has not featured in any of the government’s initiatives over the last decade or more, in fact the opposite has occurred with government subsidies for affordable housing being cut... The message is a simple and clear one: history shows us what needs to be done, Councils are increasingly doing what they can to deliver, and Government needs to step up to the plate to do its bit. ..This is about investing government money on new housing resources that will serve the affordable housing needs of society for the long term, rather than spending government money on short-term subsidies. "
"The Green Belt is a spatially constraining strategic policy whose main role is to stop cities from sprawling physically. It was part of a three-pronged suite of post-war policies that included what we now call urban renewal or regeneration (but at the time was largely slum clearance and the reconstruction of bomb sites) and a New Towns Programme... POS understands that Green Belt has become the Marmite of planning policy: defended and decried in equal measure. The politics around it are generally toxic, but it remains one of the most successful policies of our planning system. Our cities have not sprawled and there is generally a clear distinction between town and country in the UK, unlike many other parts of the world. Perhaps a change of its name to the Urban Containment Zone is needed so that it would then ‘do what it says on the tin’."
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Brexit, innit.
Well if we're using Brexit parameters, is the German economy larger today than it was on 31st of January 2020 than say the UK?
Brexit parameters are simply whatever parameters you want to select that you think support your argument.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
But of course you were right, Brexit has had a negative impact on the German economy. Not sure why that would be a point in Brexit's favour.
So your claimis that Germany staying in the EU was affected badly enough by Brexit that they went into recession whereas the UK which actually left the EU wasn't affectd sufficiently to go into recession?
Doesn't exacty match the Remainer narrative of the last few years does it.
(To be honest I think Brexit has bugger all to do with it either way. The economic hit has been way overstated and it is primarily Germany's unfortunate but inevitable reliance on Russian energy that has been the main issue)
Actually, Germany’s economic problems are less to do with Russian energy (they’ve adapted amazingly fast and well to the loss of Russian gas) and more to do with collapsing exports, most especially to China (which is not only building its own cars now, but seeks to supplant German quality manufactured goods elsewhere). This is a major long term challenge for Germany
Comments
The planning sstem is not there to prevent development nor in the overwhelming majority of cases does it. It is there to ensure that development does the least damage possible and creates structures which are actually fit for purpose.
But it is much easier for developers to blame the planning system than actually address the real reasons forthe lack of building.
Memo to Rachel Reeves
Europe's biggest economy enters recession
Germany has formally entered a recession after its economy suffered an unexpected dip in the first quarter of the year.
The country's gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 0.3% in the period from January to March, data released by the Federal Statistical Office shows.
The figures will be a blow to the government, which last month boldly doubled its growth forecast for this year, saying GDP will rise by 0.4% - up from a 0.2% expansion predicted in late January.
Economists said high inflation hit consumer spending, with prices in April 7.2% higher than a year ago.
GDP reflects the total value of goods and services produced in a country.
Before people start rabbiting on in ignorance about the planing system they shoudl ask why builders are not building houses which already have permission.
Immediately this tweet provokes a rush of reaction from Leavers and Remainers seeing it thru the perspective of Brexit. British public discourse really needs to grow up and move on.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1661621370277511168?cxt=HHwWgIC26aT1oY8uAAAA
This is why we need Local authorities to have the power to tax undeveloped land which has been granted planning permission or ultimately to take that land away and give it to a builder who will actually build houses.
We're not in a recession, Germany are.
If it were the other way round you can be 100% sure Brexit would be pointed to as the cause and the EU the solution.
This is timely reminder it's not that simple.
He picked up another Florida Rep's endorsement today.
I laid DeSantis a bit. No strong conviction yet, though. (Nor has Trump, but that remains a real possibility.)
Democrats erupt in laughter after Greene calls for decorum in House
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4019823-democrats-erupt-in-laughter-after-greene-calls-for-decorum-in-house/
Chief Superintendent Tom Budd said: “The sentence handed down today follows a challenging and complex investigation against one of our serving officers which uncovered the web of lies Aston had constructed purely because she knew the impact it would have on Mr Taylor. As well as having to serve time in prison, Mr Taylor also lost his job as a police officer and his reputation was left in tatters as a result of her lies.
“The messages between them showed that she was telling him one thing – that she didn’t want to support a prosecution and that she loved him and couldn’t live without him – while she was telling police something completely different by saying he had contacted her and turned up at various locations unwanted, including one of the addresses she said she had to move to in order to get away from him.
It's why the most media hungry politicians often lack any credibility or respect (unless they are a rare talent), it's why Rees-Mogg never really fitted as a senior Minister and why Steve Baker regrets his 'Brexit Hard Man' self labelling.
Pre-Ukraine it was about 40p/therm. Now 58p - the futures top out at 130p.
Don’t expect domestic energy bills to go back to where they used to be, though. Sunak’s bright idea is taxing us, via our bills in order to subsidise Tata.
Trying to 'fix planning' is like trying to fix the tax system or the welfare state. A massive task.
Doesn't exacty match the Remainer narrative of the last few years does it.
(To be honest I think Brexit has bugger all to do with it either way. The economic hit has been way overstated and it is primarily Germany's unfortunate but inevitable reliance on Russian energy that has been the main issue)
(Edit: probably a bit late with that
It's because we tax and spend too much, restrict building too much, have substandard infrastructure and don't promote competition enough. Those are the problems we should be fixing. If we fixed them, the impact of leaving the Single Market either way would be marginal.
Staff had a karaoke, lots of drinks, and an ABBA party.
https://twitter.com/AdamJSchwarz/status/1661765779409321986
🚨💥
🇬🇧▶️🇫🇷
The UK is on course to have a larger population than France within a year or two - for the first time *ever*.
High net migration means the population gap, ~700k at last count, is continuing to shrink.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1661792487747342339
Florida governor @GovRonDeSantis says on @clayandbuck if he’s elected president that on his first day in office he will consider pardoning any January 6th defendant he believes was politically prosecuted from a member of the public all the way up to President Trump himself.
https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1661771915348914190
Next step, Germany.
Plentyof other cases though, such as this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Daphne_(1883)
Any planning liberalisation needs a majority in Parliament and a majority in the ruling party. The first is necessary to win the vote in the Commons, the second is needed to get the vote to happen in the first case.
(As I've said before, that's the real reason that May couldn't get a sane Brexit through; a government depending on opposition votes for a flagship policy will fall and deserves to fall.)
Given that Conservatives have all the BackYard constituencies and a lot of the NIMBY electorate, party management means they can't do planning reform. Even Gove has recognised that. The only party with a chance of making this happen is one whose core electorate is young, urban and wanting to have a home. And give them their due, Starmer and Reeves seem to recognise the need.
If society increases the value of something, then surely it has the right to claim back something in taxation.
Long read just published here:
https://twitter.com/birdyword/status/1661623942929592320?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
"The British planning system implemented in 1947 created the worst possible incentives for the political groups it was trying to placate."
Sorry, what? Is she standing for German election now?
In a free market house builders are going to seek policies which both enhance prices and profitability and give them a sustained long term future.
The builders are also constrained by availability of a multitude of skills. There isn't a hidden massive pool of skilled people in housebuilding leaning on a tree smoking rollups awaiting the call.
It's too much hard work to do the opposite and no-one can be arsed.
We just have a “system” that provides the wrong incentives and vetos.
Tyndall thinks it is the housebuilders, but he hasn’t seemed to realise yet that “planning system” and “housebuilding industry” are highly symbiotic…
I agree we need to do something about it. That does not involve obsessing with small boats. It involves addressing our chronic skill shortages and the need to invest in our own people rather than simply importing people trained at someone else's expense.
I accept this is at least a medium term problem, possibly a long term one. I accept until such time as we address it we will need high levels of immigration. But I expect my government to be doing something about it: incentivising training and investment; making the importation of cheap labour less economically attractive by making those who use it more responsible for the consequential societal costs and accepting the consequences of such a policy by investing in both house building and infrastructure.
Governments which simply deplore high immigration without addressing the underlying causes are a waste of space and time. Unfortunately, I struggle to find any party that takes this even remotely seriously.
“Delivering on the ‘British Industry Supercharger’, we will ensure that Energy Intensive Industries (EIIs) remain profitable by compensating them for a portion of their network charging costs.”
Why is it UK government policy to ensure that Tata makes a profit for their shareholders?
This is insane.
Still, in America, the average size of a new house is 2,200 square feet, while in the UK it's 800 square feet, so they must be doing something right overall.
I'd expect the underlying rate to be about 400-450k pa, which is still too high but better.
Not sure how these students that net immigrate here and sort of go home but sort of don't affect it but if they are c.120k a year then you get to about 300-350k.
Probably 200-250k is sustainable long-term, within the bounds of infrastructure, housing and social change, so still a tad too high but not out of control.
I don’t think we know what is “sustainable”.
Sustainability to me implies some kind of commitment on infrastructure and housing which governments can’t be arsed with.
Exclusive: The Florida mom who got Amanda Gorman's poem banned apologizes for promoting “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
https://twitter.com/JTAnews/status/1661723546186293248
Bury your head in the sand if you like but the numbers speak gor themselves.
*For the sake of clarity these were the bromides that the self deceiving twats fed themselves.
Like a lot of people I don't trust the Home Office's competence. if students were generally excluded I think we would find that those who arrived uncounted and stayed - for perfectly good reasons and less good - would stay uncounted.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/25/boris-johnson-allies-accused-of-planning-to-block-margaret-ferrier-suspension
"Allies of Boris Johnson have been accused of preparing to block a motion to suspend the disgraced Scottish MP Margaret Ferrier, leading the government to postpone the vote in parliament.
It is believed that supporters of the former prime minister feared that a vote to suspend Ferrier for 30 days over a breach of Covid-19 rules could set a precedent if Johnson faced a similar vote."
Checking the markets, Kennedy is still shortening - as tight as 14/1, insanely (91/5 on the exchanges).
I agree with the previous header that Haley (and probably Harris) are where the value bets are.
I can think of two ways that behaviour is rational. There may be others. One of them is probably healthy- get permission for a while neighbourhood at once the build it over a decade so that a local housing market isn't swamped. The other is more cynical- if you know housing supply is constrained, why not wait until 5 years time when you expect to sell your new houses for more?
If people (housebuilders here) are behaving badly, you can either force them to be nicer or work out why and tweak the incentives. The first only really works if you're Britain's Strictest Headmistress.
They're both relatively sane and neither is senile. So they've got no chance.
I can't think of any scenario where that occurs that doesn't actually involve at least one of honeytraps or poison by foreign intelligence agencies.
Secondly, on the whole the question is whether a decision is reasonable, lawful and rational rather than whether it is right. There are no such things as 'right' decisions.
So for example the concept of consultation is often key to decision making. You should not be able to attenuate that process just because a judge thinks you made the 'right' decision.
With democracy so populist and government so banal and arrogant, the right to hold power to account is especially important.
JR is like the secret ballot - one of those things that separates us from North Korea.
Part of me thinks Fuck it, let’s go for a UK of 100m people. Boss the rest of Europe just by being so much bigger
Planning permission volume says nothing about the time and complexity of achieving permission, nor the incentives thereby delivered to house builders.
Everything he touches he curdles.
Am I alone in thinking that this Downing Street "crash" is just another attempt by the Tories to distract from their immigration failures, Boris Johnson, #PartyGate Suella Braverman and other scandals?
https://twitter.com/SP_Duckworth/status/1661813178152484872
The Empire Strikes Back (by migrating in large numbers to the metropole).
I have to say that the LOB stage show sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, as does a new version of Fawlty Towers.
With the exception of a couple of nations who got it earlier than the rest (and even they subsidise), they takes a lot of money.
Despite the fossil fuel Luddites' protestations, it's a sensible investment.
https://www.planningofficers.org.uk/uploads/news/pos-mbp13-housing-crisis.pdf
". What POS asks is that government should stop pretending that house price inflation is mainly caused by the supply of housing, because it is not. Policies based on this thinking are
fundamentally misplaced and do not address the real issues."
"What is clear is that building 300,000 homes per year hardly ever happens. It was nearly achieved in the mid-1950s and achieved during the early to the late 1960s. Throughout that time (1946 to the late 1970s) at least half of the supply was Council Housing. The private house-building sector rarely builds more than 150,000 homes per year, with recent output much less than that. ..The main crime of the housing crisis is that since the early 1990s, RSL housing is the only source of affordable housing, and the main source of subsidy is no longer from Government but from developers through §106 agreements. "
" It is clear that Local Authorities see the need for and are actively re-entering the business of Council house building. The need to do so is compelling yet supporting this obvious answer to the need to deliver more affordable housing has not featured in any of the government’s initiatives over the last decade or more, in fact the opposite has occurred with government subsidies for affordable housing being cut... The message is a simple and clear one: history shows us what needs to be done, Councils are increasingly doing what they can to deliver, and Government needs to step up to the plate to do its bit. ..This is about investing government money on new housing resources that will serve the affordable housing needs of society for the
long term, rather than spending government money on short-term subsidies. "
"The Green Belt is a spatially constraining strategic policy whose main role is to stop cities from sprawling physically. It was part of a three-pronged suite of post-war policies that included what we now call urban renewal or regeneration (but at the time was largely slum clearance and the
reconstruction of bomb sites) and a New Towns Programme... POS understands that Green Belt has become the Marmite of planning policy: defended and decried in equal measure. The politics around it are generally toxic, but it remains one of the most successful policies of our planning system. Our cities have not sprawled and there is generally a clear distinction between town
and country in the UK, unlike many other parts of the world. Perhaps a change of its name to the Urban Containment Zone is needed so that it would then ‘do what it says on the tin’."