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
London has been ranked as the world’s most high-tech city snatching the top spot from New York, according to new research shared exclusively with City A.M.
The capital scored top marks for its world-leading financial services, deep talent pool as well as the quality of its business environment and international reputation, according to Z/Yen Group’s seventh edition of the Smart Centres Index.
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.
Courthouse News Service - Attorney in Kari Lake voting machine lawsuit asks to be spared from sanctions
Alan Dershowitz says he spent only three or four hours working on Lake’s case, providing her attorneys with advice on an issue that ultimately has no connection to a federal judge’s imposition of sanctions against her legal team.
An attorney who worked on Kari Lake’s 2022 lawsuit aiming to ban the use of electronic vote machines in Arizona says he shouldn’t face sanctions along with the rest of Lake’s counsel because of his "little involvement” in the case.
Alan Dershowitz says he was mistakenly listed as the lead attorney in Lake’s suit against the Arizona secretary of state and supervisors of both Maricopa and Pima Counties. Rather than leading the legal effort to disrupt trust in Arizona’s elections, Dershowitz says he spent “merely three or four hours” on the case as an advisor to Lake’s attorneys on a matter of constitutionality.
In a Wednesday afternoon hearing in Arizona federal court, he and his attorney Dennis Wilenchik distanced themselves from the “army of attorneys” Wilenchik said is trying to undo the 2020 General Election.
“I do not like Miss Lake,” Dershowitz told U.S. District Judge John Tuchi. “I would never have voted for her. I would never in a million years be part of any campaign to influence or affect the election. . . .
If a judge finds an attorney violated Rule 11, the federal law that requires legal contentions to be filed with factual supporting evidence and warranted by existing law, they may issue a directive against them or their law firm that discourages them from future misconduct. Sanctions may or may not include financial punishment.
Dershowitz says he shouldn’t be included in the sanctions because he made an “honest mistake” in listing himself as “of counsel,” rather than “as counsel.” He said he intended the distinction to make clear that he was there only as an advisor to the law firm representing Lake, and did not represent Lake herself in any way, as he doesn’t know her nor has he met her. But the clerk’s office, and subsequently the county’s legal team, interpreted his signature on the court documents as him serving as counsel for Lake. . . .
SSI - so the excuse of the Great Attorney, Scholar and Pundit of The Law is, he fucked up on a point that a 1st-year law school student would get right 99 times out of 100?
Makes sense to me, as Alan Dershowitz has about as much credibility these days as Rudy Giuliani.
"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.
With JR in planning you can have a terrible decision that is completely unconvincing but legally sound, whereas you could alternatively have an outstandingly reasoned and convincing decision that becomes voided through a single typo. In practice it is basically the tool of those with deep pockets, most decisions have some flaw, you just need hundreds of thousands of quid that you can afford to lose to be able to participate.
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
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?
This is insane.
The insanity lies in the fact that the Government's own emissions trading/green taxes would drive these industries out of business/overseas, and therefore the Government needs to introduce a subsidy to ensure that they can remain in business. So yes, it is insane, but the subsidy is marginally less insane than the green taxes without the subsidy. What would actually be *sane* would be to scrap the emissions trading scheme (we can now that we have left the EU - oh look, another Brexit benefit), and therefore we wouldn't need the farcical tax/subsidy merry-go-round. Domestic energy is the same situation. Ludicrous parody socialism. From a Tory Government.
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
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.
Yes, but if you're telling a British person that you fought on the Eastern front, it's polite - less chance that you killed their Dad or bombed their granny.
Has been on the antivaxxer grift longer than most. ...Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism... (Wikipedia)
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
But conditions that would have no foreseeable end. So what do they do? Build, or go out of business?
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
There's a long way to eat into developers' profits before it becomes remotely unprofitable imo - so my Dad assures me, and he spent most of his career working for them and is now on the local Government side. The hope would be that taxing unbuilt plots would turn housebuilding into a high turnover, lower profit exercise. After all, if they decided to stop applying for planning, someone else could just swoop in and build on the land.
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
But conditions that would have no foreseeable end. So what do they do? Build, or go out of business?
But it depends on them building to create the oversupply, and they won't, because it would go against their interests. The POS article has the usual graph in it, the housebuilders have for the last 80 or so years built around 150k houses per year, which is understood to be the extent of the demand for newbuilds in the private market.
I suspect he does not, in fact, “do the math” on per capita growth.
Not sure what maths is required to know that IMF forecasts are always wrong. They're shit.
Got better ones? Start up a forecasting service with BigG, you’ll make a mint.
Everyone with a blindfold, a pin and a picture of a donkey has better ones. The failure of their predictions is a matter of public record. You may choose to politely ignore that they can't forecast for shit but why should anybody else?
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
There's a long way to eat into developers' profits before it becomes remotely unprofitable imo - so my Dad assures me, and he spent most of his career working for them and is now on the local Government side. The hope would be that taxing unbuilt plots would turn housebuilding into a high turnover, lower profit exercise. After all, if they decided to stop applying for planning, someone else could just swoop in and build on the land.
How are you going to incentivise builders to deliver more houses in a falling market ? I don't see how it happens.
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
There's a long way to eat into developers' profits before it becomes remotely unprofitable imo - so my Dad assures me, and he spent most of his career working for them and is now on the local Government side. The hope would be that taxing unbuilt plots would turn housebuilding into a high turnover, lower profit exercise. After all, if they decided to stop applying for planning, someone else could just swoop in and build on the land.
How are you going to incentivise builders to deliver more houses in a falling market ? I don't see how it happens.
Allow councils to charge council tax on unbuilt plots held by developers.
I suspect he does not, in fact, “do the math” on per capita growth.
Pathetic response
He is quoting the IMF
So what?
Why are you so worked up about IMF? Do you think you can do better than the IMF? Or do you hold an epistemological view that all forecasting is essentially futile?
Or are you trying to make some obscure point that Rachel Reeves shouldn’t use international economic forecasts to make political points?
I suspect he does not, in fact, “do the math” on per capita growth.
Pathetic response
He is quoting the IMF
So what?
Why are you so worked up about IMF? Do you think you can do better than the IMF? Or do you hold an epistemological view that all forecasting is essentially futile?
Or are you trying to make some obscure point that Rachel Reeves shouldn’t use international economic forecasts to make political points?
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
There's a long way to eat into developers' profits before it becomes remotely unprofitable imo - so my Dad assures me, and he spent most of his career working for them and is now on the local Government side. The hope would be that taxing unbuilt plots would turn housebuilding into a high turnover, lower profit exercise. After all, if they decided to stop applying for planning, someone else could just swoop in and build on the land.
How are you going to incentivise builders to deliver more houses in a falling market ? I don't see how it happens.
Allow councils to charge council tax on unbuilt plots held by developers.
I don't believe that putting a £200k per annum tax on an unimplemented 100 unit consented scheme would incentivise its delivery when the market is falling. The obvious thing for a developer to do would be to try and find a loophole, which they are generally quite good at doing.
Great Coastal Railway Journeys with Portillo is on BBC2. Episodes 3, 4 & 5 - especially episode 4 - is Cyclefree country. He goes on the lines which go through the station in our village - and for the railway enthusiasts on here - you have to hail the train when it arrives. It's a two-carriage train and I can see it pootling around the Duddon estuary from my living-room window.
Worth catching - it really shows off the beauty of the coastline.
I suspect he does not, in fact, “do the math” on per capita growth.
Pathetic response
He is quoting the IMF
So what?
Why are you so worked up about IMF? Do you think you can do better than the IMF? Or do you hold an epistemological view that all forecasting is essentially futile?
Or are you trying to make some obscure point that Rachel Reeves shouldn’t use international economic forecasts to make political points?
She should use the correct ones
Again pathetic response
They were the correct ones when she made her statement. Or are you damning Reeves because she lacks the ability to predict the future?
I’m afraid this latest meme from Tory HQ is another pile of guff.
Maybe it’s worked though as you successfully avoided talking about the substance of her speech today.
“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.
LOL "shot down". Your definition of "shot down" is that developers can eventually get approval if they relentlessly drag this through the courts and appeals process for years.
I've said before and I'll say it again, that's not good enough. That means small developers, competition for the large ones, are stymied as they aren't able to do that.
If there is to be a permission process it needs to be resolved in days or weeks, not years or decades.
But while I respect you, you're so transparent. I find it utterly hilarious that when we started discussing this you were appalled at the idea of relaxing planning permission as it would lead to 'green' spaces being 'concreted' over and apparently I know 'the value of nothing'.
After we've all been back and forth on this topic many times, the simple reality is you know that morally now you don't have a leg to stand on. You know that those of us on my side of the argument are right. That the shortage of housing is a serious problem, a more serious problem than having more development. But you still don't want the development, but you won't advance an argument you know to be morally wrong - which I respect - so now you cling to this notion that planning is not the problem.
In a short space of time we've gone from dealing with planning reform being a terrible idea that would see mass developments you don't want, to planning not being an impediment to developments at all so its not responsible or needing to be resolved for the problem to be fixed.
I'm not the one who has been shot down. Your argument has - and you are a good man, you know it has too. Hence this fig leaf. You may be convincing yourself that planning is not the problem, but you're not convincing anyone else.
It's a reasonable criticism. Amis was a great stylist and humorist but his books are a bit Oxbridge-clever-clever and empty.
Have you read any of Eagleton's stuff ? Similar criticism might apply.
Entertaining lecturer back in the day.
Yeah, writing is hard. I sometimes wonder where literary critics get off. Still, I think the criticism is broadly valid. Amis, McEwan, Barnes etc, I like all of them but there is a kind of controlled, limited quality to their work that leaves you wanting more, wondering, is this it? Is this the very best there is? I really loved the Rachel Papers and Metroland, which I guess were probably quite heavily autobiographical in both cases. McEwan I find a bit meh, I find it hard to get emotionally caught up in some of his books. I liked Atonement, which I did find very sad, but I think I preferred the film to the book. One thing I've noted as I've got older is that I've become more drawn to work by women for some reason. In writing and music. Perhaps as you get older you feel less need to see yourself reflected on the page or in the song and more interested in hearing other stories?
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
"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.
But the other figures explicitely say that. Of course you are not interested in facts, only your own uninformed opinions
Has been on the antivaxxer grift longer than most. ...Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism... (Wikipedia)
And married to Cheryl Hines, who plays Larry David’s wife on Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Not sure it’s worth laying him right now - it’s a long time before it pays off.
"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."
Rather transparent stuff.
He might not even get recommended a suspension that would prompt a recall.
"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.
Don't forget if you have a large site you can go slow on it, screw the housing land supply figures for the authority, who then have to give less weight to local plans and allocations (or see an inspector do it), which can free up sites that would otherwise be refused and are easier or more profitable to build on.
Planning permission volume says nothing about the time and complexity of achieving permission, nor the incentives thereby delivered to house builders.
Precisely, our flawed planning system means that the experts at handling the system (the large developers) play it to the best of their interest, rather than everyone else's - and because the system is broken, regardless of what Mr Tyndall reckons, small competitors struggle to take them on by doing small alternative projects instead.
In a free and healthy market, there would be a lot more developments happening by small developers. As there are in almost every country in the world with a better planning system. But they get stymied at the start and so we are left with what we're left with.
Besides, the fact that 60% of homes given permission are built is not necessarily a failing. There will be plenty of homes that are going to be built but haven't had the time to be built yet, but also not all homes that get permission perhaps should be built either.
In any industry, in any walk of life, companies investigate or start projects that then never get completed. Because the company concerned runs into financial difficulties, or problems occur, or the market changes, or a better alternative option becomes available instead which is proceeded with instead, or a plethora of other factors. There are problems with land banking and those problems are entirely caused by the broken planning system, but the fact that some projects fail is not something that should never happen.
Who here has gone their career without ever seeing a project that was started with the best of intentions having had the plug pulled on it before completion?
I have to say that the LOB stage show sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, as does a new version of Fawlty Towers.
My dad is a huge FT fan, and a lot of the time seemes like he would agree with much of what Cleese says these days, but even he when he heard the news was distinctly underwhelmed by the idea.
If that core demographic of FT fans aren't up for it, who is?
It's a reasonable criticism. Amis was a great stylist and humorist but his books are a bit Oxbridge-clever-clever and empty.
Have you read any of Eagleton's stuff ? Similar criticism might apply.
Entertaining lecturer back in the day.
Eagleton may be a bit dull but he has something to say and is serious about it. Amis, like his dad, is amusing and empty. Neither will be taken seriously in the longer run. Style will never make up for lack of vision.
"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.
But the other figures explicitely say that. Of course you are not interested in facts, only your own uninformed opinions
The figures say nothing of the sort.
A large majority of potential homes with permission are completed.
Some are not. That could be due to the fact:
A: They're going to be but it hasn't happened yet as it takes time (not a problem). B: They're not going to be built due to legitimate reasons (not a problem). C: They could and should be built but are being landbanked by large firms who value the permission the property has and want to hold onto it without doing anything (a problem created entirely by the planning system).
You act as if its all C, but even if you're right which isn't the case, the solution is to reform the planning system to make it easier for other firms to compete with the large firms who have teams of planning lawyers, wallets to bank land, and the ability to wait out the planning system for the years or decades it can take.
Great Coastal Railway Journeys with Portillo is on BBC2. Episodes 3, 4 & 5 - especially episode 4 - is Cyclefree country. He goes on the lines which go through the station in our village - and for the railway enthusiasts on here - you have to hail the train when it arrives. It's a two-carriage train and I can see it pootling around the Duddon estuary from my living-room window.
Worth catching - it really shows off the beauty of the coastline.
Hello. I was on part (not that part) of that line last week.
I have to say that the LOB stage show sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, as does a new version of Fawlty Towers.
My dad is a huge FT fan, and a lot of the time seemes like he would agree with much of what Cleese says these days, but even he when he heard the news was distinctly underwhelmed by the idea.
If that core demographic of FT fans aren't up for it, who is?
Courthouse News Service - Attorney in Kari Lake voting machine lawsuit asks to be spared from sanctions
Alan Dershowitz says he spent only three or four hours working on Lake’s case, providing her attorneys with advice on an issue that ultimately has no connection to a federal judge’s imposition of sanctions against her legal team.
An attorney who worked on Kari Lake’s 2022 lawsuit aiming to ban the use of electronic vote machines in Arizona says he shouldn’t face sanctions along with the rest of Lake’s counsel because of his "little involvement” in the case.
Alan Dershowitz says he was mistakenly listed as the lead attorney in Lake’s suit against the Arizona secretary of state and supervisors of both Maricopa and Pima Counties. Rather than leading the legal effort to disrupt trust in Arizona’s elections, Dershowitz says he spent “merely three or four hours” on the case as an advisor to Lake’s attorneys on a matter of constitutionality.
In a Wednesday afternoon hearing in Arizona federal court, he and his attorney Dennis Wilenchik distanced themselves from the “army of attorneys” Wilenchik said is trying to undo the 2020 General Election.
“I do not like Miss Lake,” Dershowitz told U.S. District Judge John Tuchi. “I would never have voted for her. I would never in a million years be part of any campaign to influence or affect the election. . . .
If a judge finds an attorney violated Rule 11, the federal law that requires legal contentions to be filed with factual supporting evidence and warranted by existing law, they may issue a directive against them or their law firm that discourages them from future misconduct. Sanctions may or may not include financial punishment.
Dershowitz says he shouldn’t be included in the sanctions because he made an “honest mistake” in listing himself as “of counsel,” rather than “as counsel.” He said he intended the distinction to make clear that he was there only as an advisor to the law firm representing Lake, and did not represent Lake herself in any way, as he doesn’t know her nor has he met her. But the clerk’s office, and subsequently the county’s legal team, interpreted his signature on the court documents as him serving as counsel for Lake. . . .
SSI - so the excuse of the Great Attorney, Scholar and Pundit of The Law is, he fucked up on a point that a 1st-year law school student would get right 99 times out of 100?
Makes sense to me, as Alan Dershowitz has about as much credibility these days as Rudy Giuliani.
Utterly pathetic some of these attorneys, making flagrantly ridiculous claims on TV a lot of the time then making slightly less but still ridiculous claims in court, in some cases possibly ruining their legal careers for the brief possibility of being shat upon by Trump at some point.
If Dershowitz is truthful his biggest mistake was being careless about hiring out his name for a bogus lawsuit, since even I've heard of him so he must be very famous, and it seems pretty obvious Lake and co just wanted a big name for a press release.
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
There's a long way to eat into developers' profits before it becomes remotely unprofitable imo - so my Dad assures me, and he spent most of his career working for them and is now on the local Government side. The hope would be that taxing unbuilt plots would turn housebuilding into a high turnover, lower profit exercise. After all, if they decided to stop applying for planning, someone else could just swoop in and build on the land.
If developments are so extremely profitable then why don't small firms compete with the large developers? Why do we get most developments in large estates rather than smaller ones being built by smaller firms?
There are plenty of skilled trades people in this country who could be capable of constructing homes and managing the projects. Small business entrepreneurialism is a key to economic success.
So if the sector is so profitable, why aren't good tradies turning their hand into the sector - as happens in almost every other economy?
The answer of course is the planning system. It is such a mess, that its not worth a good tradesperson turning their hand to construction, because they're good at what they do but they're not lawyers and they don't have the money, time or ability to buy land and spend years wading through the planning system and appeals processes.
"Welcome back, weary traveller. It is the year 4037. I know this will be a shock to you, as you expected to be awakened after only 5 years, but we have a very important question for you, one which splits out society in two:
Was the bus about £350m a week a key factor in the Brexit campaign?"
I suspect he does not, in fact, “do the math” on per capita growth.
Not sure what maths is required to know that IMF forecasts are always wrong. They're shit.
All forecasts are almost always wrong.
How much analysis is there of economic forecast accuracy?
For example, has anyone taken the OBR/IMF/whoever forecasts of economic growth at a 12-month lead time and plotted that against the outturn? If you were to calculate a skill score, would they show any skill?
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
It’s always someone else’s fault with this rancid government.
The arxehole Jenrick blaming universities for the alleged audacity of trying to get foreign students who might have family who want to come with them .
I mean what an outrage ! Doing something that is within current immigration rules !
Great Coastal Railway Journeys with Portillo is on BBC2. Episodes 3, 4 & 5 - especially episode 4 - is Cyclefree country. He goes on the lines which go through the station in our village - and for the railway enthusiasts on here - you have to hail the train when it arrives. It's a two-carriage train and I can see it pootling around the Duddon estuary from my living-room window.
Worth catching - it really shows off the beauty of the coastline.
Hello. I was on part (not that part) of that line last week.
Which part?
It's a shame they didn't show more of the beaches at Silecroft and Haverigg, which are simply glorious.
"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.
Plenty of sensible stuff in there. I'm not 100% convinced by the "increasing supply won't reduce prices" idea, but since my suggestion for increasing supply is the same "government should get the wallet out and build a lot more council houses" policy they recommend, we arrive at the same destination anyway.
There is probably some truth in the idea that increasing supply would depress prices but then this poses the question how would that happen, why would housebuilders keep building houses if there was an oversupply and, in consequence, prices were going down. It would create unfavourable market conditions for housebuilding.
There's a long way to eat into developers' profits before it becomes remotely unprofitable imo - so my Dad assures me, and he spent most of his career working for them and is now on the local Government side. The hope would be that taxing unbuilt plots would turn housebuilding into a high turnover, lower profit exercise. After all, if they decided to stop applying for planning, someone else could just swoop in and build on the land.
How are you going to incentivise builders to deliver more houses in a falling market ? I don't see how it happens.
Allow councils to charge council tax on unbuilt plots held by developers.
I don't believe that putting a £200k per annum tax on an unimplemented 100 unit consented scheme would incentivise its delivery when the market is falling. The obvious thing for a developer to do would be to try and find a loophole, which they are generally quite good at doing.
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
Just to add, the Telegraph headline tomorrow is exactly this, what you raised Mex in answer to Big_G, fears the BoE has lost control of inflation, the Truss era pain and chaos such fear is beginning to threaten. All it needs is world markets fear UK has lost control of inflation to act as a spark, who knows what size of bonfire builtfrom poor hedging is out there waiting.
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
You and @Mexicanpete are trying to turn a positive into a negative, and for political reasons. If UK consumer spending is holding up unexpectedly, that is a positive, not a negative - it shows that consumers believe, all other things being equal, that their personal situation remains positive. If consumers reduce their spending - as in Germany - it shows they are more pessimistic.
I know you both have political reasons for pushing your view but your arguments simply do not make sense.
There's another reason that our messed up planning system encourages landbanking and the large housebuilders is that land with permission is worth much more than land without it, thanks to the planning system. So holding onto land with permission, even you're not developing it, means you have a valuable asset.
Whereas if a small developer is thinking of building some homes, they need to buy the land, hope to get permission quickly and easily, then they can start building. But why buy land that might have permission rejected and then be worthless to you, if you only have enough money as a small businessman to buy one bit of land? That could put you out of business, so small businesses are put off entirely.
A sensible zonal planning system allows planning considerations but eliminates the premium to planning permission. A developer can buy any land within the zone and know they will have permission even before they purchase the land so they can get on with doing their job, instead of wrestling with uncertainty, appeals and lawyers.
It would also eliminate the premium on land with permission, which will eliminate landbanking.
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
Just to add, the Telegraph headline tomorrow is exactly this, what you raised Mex in answer to Big_G, fears the BoE has lost control of inflation, the Truss era pain and chaos such fear is beginning to threaten. All it needs is world markets fear UK has lost control of inflation to act as a spark, who knows what size of bonfire builtfrom poor hedging is out there waiting.
Maybe Rishi and Jeremy will achieve the double six roll of the dice by end 2023?
It’s always someone else’s fault with this rancid government.
The arxehole Jenrick blaming universities for the alleged audacity of trying to get foreign students who might have family who want to come with them .
I mean what an outrage ! Doing something that is within current immigration rules !
The Mail and Times front pages are not remotely interested in this news story like you are. Only the Mirror, using an ignorant/inexcusable photo of boat arrivals to support its headline, who want to take up issue with todays fantastic multicultural economy boosting news for UK.
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
Just to add, the Telegraph headline tomorrow is exactly this, what you raised Mex in answer to Big_G, fears the BoE has lost control of inflation, the Truss era pain and chaos such fear is beginning to threaten. All it needs is world markets fear UK has lost control of inflation to act as a spark, who knows what size of bonfire builtfrom poor hedging is out there waiting.
Maybe Rishi and Jeremy will achieve the double six roll of the dice by end 2023?
6% inflation 6% interest rates
😡😡😡
Inflation could still remain that high throughout 2023, underlying inflation is now nudging 7 going up.
I don’t think we could get remotely near 6% interest rates without the government surrounding the BoE with the armies tanks to take back control.
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.
I am not sure your post is as clever as you think it is. Reduced consumer spending as you say has tipped Germany into a one quarter technical recession, we have avoided that, just. Reduced German consumer spending is beneficial for reducing inflation, perhaps their interest rates will remain more stable than ours. UK consumer spending remains buoyant which is why we are having to increase interest rates to suppress consumer spending. That in turn has potential for all sorts of recessionary pressures.
It’s a good spot of thinking from you Mex, and a rather open question I wouldn’t expect a perfect answer posted back - Lady Thatcher used a recession with added monetary tightening (two fingers to a Keynesian approach) to drive the inflationary poison out our system, that Labour government just couldn’t get to grips with. Is it better for UK to go into recession in 2023 and see off this inflation, or carry on overheating as revealed this week, with no control over inflation, especially food inflation, despite interest rates already up to where they are now?
Just to add, the Telegraph headline tomorrow is exactly this, what you raised Mex in answer to Big_G, fears the BoE has lost control of inflation, the Truss era pain and chaos such fear is beginning to threaten. All it needs is world markets fear UK has lost control of inflation to act as a spark, who knows what size of bonfire builtfrom poor hedging is out there waiting.
Maybe Rishi and Jeremy will achieve the double six roll of the dice by end 2023?
6% inflation 6% interest rates
😡😡😡
Inflation could still remain that high throughout 2023, underlying inflation is now nudging 7 going up.
I don’t think we could get remotely near 6% interest rates without the government surrounding the BoE with the armies tanks to take back control.
Yes fair point bearing in mind it took the Bank of England a year to wake up to the fact that inflation was getting out of control!
Comments
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’."
https://www.cityam.com/london-takes-global-tech-capital-crown-from-new-york/
London has been ranked as the world’s most high-tech city snatching the top spot from New York, according to new research shared exclusively with City A.M.
The capital scored top marks for its world-leading financial services, deep talent pool as well as the quality of its business environment and international reputation, according to Z/Yen Group’s seventh edition of the Smart Centres Index.
His exquisite style hid a squalid sense of morality
Terry Eagleton"
https://unherd.com/2023/05/the-liberal-complacency-of-martin-amis/
Tempted to lay the hell out of him.
Courthouse News Service - Attorney in Kari Lake voting machine lawsuit asks to be spared from sanctions
Alan Dershowitz says he spent only three or four hours working on Lake’s case, providing her attorneys with advice on an issue that ultimately has no connection to a federal judge’s imposition of sanctions against her legal team.
An attorney who worked on Kari Lake’s 2022 lawsuit aiming to ban the use of electronic vote machines in Arizona says he shouldn’t face sanctions along with the rest of Lake’s counsel because of his "little involvement” in the case.
Alan Dershowitz says he was mistakenly listed as the lead attorney in Lake’s suit against the Arizona secretary of state and supervisors of both Maricopa and Pima Counties. Rather than leading the legal effort to disrupt trust in Arizona’s elections, Dershowitz says he spent “merely three or four hours” on the case as an advisor to Lake’s attorneys on a matter of constitutionality.
In a Wednesday afternoon hearing in Arizona federal court, he and his attorney Dennis Wilenchik distanced themselves from the “army of attorneys” Wilenchik said is trying to undo the 2020 General Election.
“I do not like Miss Lake,” Dershowitz told U.S. District Judge John Tuchi. “I would never have voted for her. I would never in a million years be part of any campaign to influence or affect the election. . . .
If a judge finds an attorney violated Rule 11, the federal law that requires legal contentions to be filed with factual supporting evidence and warranted by existing law, they may issue a directive against them or their law firm that discourages them from future misconduct. Sanctions may or may not include financial punishment.
Dershowitz says he shouldn’t be included in the sanctions because he made an “honest mistake” in listing himself as “of counsel,” rather than “as counsel.” He said he intended the distinction to make clear that he was there only as an advisor to the law firm representing Lake, and did not represent Lake herself in any way, as he doesn’t know her nor has he met her. But the clerk’s office, and subsequently the county’s legal team, interpreted his signature on the court documents as him serving as counsel for Lake. . . .
https://www.courthousenews.com/attorney-in-kari-lake-voting-machine-lawsuit-asks-to-be-spared-from-sanctions/
SSI - so the excuse of the Great Attorney, Scholar and Pundit of The Law is, he fucked up on a point that a 1st-year law school student would get right 99 times out of 100?
Makes sense to me, as Alan Dershowitz has about as much credibility these days as Rudy Giuliani.
(sarcasm).
Similar criticism might apply.
Entertaining lecturer back in the day.
Has been on the antivaxxer grift longer than most.
...Since 2005, he has promoted the scientifically discredited link between vaccines and autism... (Wikipedia)
In the short term, it’s more a factor of interest rates.
Got any Reddit or Pornhub links?
I suspect he does not, in fact, “do the math” on per capita growth.
Start up a forecasting service with BigG, you’ll make a mint.
He is quoting the IMF
Why are you so worked up about IMF?
Do you think you can do better than the IMF?
Or do you hold an epistemological view that all forecasting is essentially futile?
Or are you trying to make some obscure point that Rachel Reeves shouldn’t use international economic forecasts to make political points?
Again pathetic response
Worth catching - it really shows off the beauty of the coastline.
I’m afraid this latest meme from Tory HQ is another pile of guff.
Maybe it’s worked though as you successfully avoided talking about the substance of her speech today.
I've said before and I'll say it again, that's not good enough. That means small developers, competition for the large ones, are stymied as they aren't able to do that.
If there is to be a permission process it needs to be resolved in days or weeks, not years or decades.
But while I respect you, you're so transparent. I find it utterly hilarious that when we started discussing this you were appalled at the idea of relaxing planning permission as it would lead to 'green' spaces being 'concreted' over and apparently I know 'the value of nothing'.
After we've all been back and forth on this topic many times, the simple reality is you know that morally now you don't have a leg to stand on. You know that those of us on my side of the argument are right. That the shortage of housing is a serious problem, a more serious problem than having more development. But you still don't want the development, but you won't advance an argument you know to be morally wrong - which I respect - so now you cling to this notion that planning is not the problem.
In a short space of time we've gone from dealing with planning reform being a terrible idea that would see mass developments you don't want, to planning not being an impediment to developments at all so its not responsible or needing to be resolved for the problem to be fixed.
I'm not the one who has been shot down. Your argument has - and you are a good man, you know it has too. Hence this fig leaf. You may be convincing yourself that planning is not the problem, but you're not convincing anyone else.
Hibernation artificially triggered in potential space travel breakthrough
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/may/25/hibernation-artificially-triggered-in-potential-space-travel-breakthrough
One thing I've noted as I've got older is that I've become more drawn to work by women for some reason. In writing and music. Perhaps as you get older you feel less need to see yourself reflected on the page or in the song and more interested in hearing other stories?
Not sure it’s worth laying him right now - it’s a long time before it pays off.
He might not even get recommended a suspension that would prompt a recall.
In a free and healthy market, there would be a lot more developments happening by small developers. As there are in almost every country in the world with a better planning system. But they get stymied at the start and so we are left with what we're left with.
Besides, the fact that 60% of homes given permission are built is not necessarily a failing. There will be plenty of homes that are going to be built but haven't had the time to be built yet, but also not all homes that get permission perhaps should be built either.
In any industry, in any walk of life, companies investigate or start projects that then never get completed. Because the company concerned runs into financial difficulties, or problems occur, or the market changes, or a better alternative option becomes available instead which is proceeded with instead, or a plethora of other factors. There are problems with land banking and those problems are entirely caused by the broken planning system, but the fact that some projects fail is not something that should never happen.
Who here has gone their career without ever seeing a project that was started with the best of intentions having had the plug pulled on it before completion?
If that core demographic of FT fans aren't up for it, who is?
A large majority of potential homes with permission are completed.
Some are not. That could be due to the fact:
A: They're going to be but it hasn't happened yet as it takes time (not a problem).
B: They're not going to be built due to legitimate reasons (not a problem).
C: They could and should be built but are being landbanked by large firms who value the permission the property has and want to hold onto it without doing anything (a problem created entirely by the planning system).
You act as if its all C, but even if you're right which isn't the case, the solution is to reform the planning system to make it easier for other firms to compete with the large firms who have teams of planning lawyers, wallets to bank land, and the ability to wait out the planning system for the years or decades it can take.
If Dershowitz is truthful his biggest mistake was being careless about hiring out his name for a bogus lawsuit, since even I've heard of him so he must be very famous, and it seems pretty obvious Lake and co just wanted a big name for a press release.
There are plenty of skilled trades people in this country who could be capable of constructing homes and managing the projects. Small business entrepreneurialism is a key to economic success.
So if the sector is so profitable, why aren't good tradies turning their hand into the sector - as happens in almost every other economy?
The answer of course is the planning system. It is such a mess, that its not worth a good tradesperson turning their hand to construction, because they're good at what they do but they're not lawyers and they don't have the money, time or ability to buy land and spend years wading through the planning system and appeals processes.
Was the bus about £350m a week a key factor in the Brexit campaign?"
You would not believe the number of ways to measure the degree of wrongness and the arguments that can be had when using them
For example, has anyone taken the OBR/IMF/whoever forecasts of economic growth at a 12-month lead time and plotted that against the outturn? If you were to calculate a skill score, would they show any skill?
Compare and contrast to:
Ron Paul 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcypAC2VHew
!Tom Cruise 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Btb8gLy3-E
https://interestingliterature.com/2020/06/curates-egg-phrase-meaning-origins/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrfHB6QXtA
B__x_t
The arxehole Jenrick blaming universities for the alleged audacity of trying to get foreign students who might have family who want to come with them .
I mean what an outrage ! Doing something that is within current immigration rules !
It's a shame they didn't show more of the beaches at Silecroft and Haverigg, which are simply glorious.
I know you both have political reasons for pushing your view but your arguments simply do not make sense.
Whereas if a small developer is thinking of building some homes, they need to buy the land, hope to get permission quickly and easily, then they can start building. But why buy land that might have permission rejected and then be worthless to you, if you only have enough money as a small businessman to buy one bit of land? That could put you out of business, so small businesses are put off entirely.
A sensible zonal planning system allows planning considerations but eliminates the premium to planning permission. A developer can buy any land within the zone and know they will have permission even before they purchase the land so they can get on with doing their job, instead of wrestling with uncertainty, appeals and lawyers.
It would also eliminate the premium on land with permission, which will eliminate landbanking.
6% inflation
6% interest rates
😡😡😡
I don’t think we could get remotely near 6% interest rates without the government surrounding the BoE with the armies tanks to take back control.