And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Cutting inflation doesn't reduce prices, it means prices remain high and continue to rise at a slower rate.
Cutting immigration wouldn't mean we'd need fewer houses, it'd mean we'd still having a housing shortage and we'd continue to need even more houses per annum but at a lower rate.
Though you have failed to understand maths or numbers as per usual.
Most recent data is from 2021.
2021 Live Births: 694,685 2021 Deaths: 666,659
694,65 - 666,659 = Natural population growth of 28,026
Birth rate has been below 'replacement level' in theory since 1973. In the past 50 years birth rate has exceeded death rate every single year except 2020 at the height of the pandemic and 1976, despite having a below replacement level birth rate that entire time.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Sunak might not be fit to be in Downing St but after your fawning over Johnson for three years and a half years I think he'd be advised to get a second opinion.
I don't think Bart has 'fawned' over Boris. You can't go accusing anyone who doesn't loathe Boris quite as much as you do of 'fawning'. That way madness lies.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
"Brownfield", "high rise" or "overseas" seem to be the preferred options.
Not that they want those options for themselves. Oh no, there's no reason they shouldn't have a detached home with a garden but other people wanting a semi-detached with a garden is utterly unreasonable because "my view" might be impaired.
I don't know why we don't build a load of three storey terraced houses with modest gardens, they are high density housing that people actually like living in.
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Immigration is booming, nobody can stop it by any means the country would support. It will likely remain in the hundreds of thousands, as there's no reason to think people are going to stop migrating, especially as the world warms.
The UK will quite likely exceed a population of 70 million within a couple of years. 80 million by 2050 looks entirely plausible too.
WHERE ARE WE ALL GOING TO LIVE AND WORK IF WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING?
Italy has a Nationalist right PM now in Meloni, Vox are on the rise in Spain, some polls have Le Pen ahead in France now.
And if they introduce hardline policies to stop the boats that will in turn reduce migration to the UK
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
"Brownfield", "high rise" or "overseas" seem to be the preferred options.
Not that they want those options for themselves. Oh no, there's no reason they shouldn't have a detached home with a garden but other people wanting a semi-detached with a garden is utterly unreasonable because "my view" might be impaired.
I don't know why we don't build a load of three storey terraced houses with modest gardens, they are high density housing that people actually like living in.
They might make sense in cities, but in towns and suburbs they're a terrible idea in my opinion. Homes should as standard be semi-detached with a driveway for off-road parking and most importantly for charging your car.
Where do you park your electric car and how do you charge it with new terraced homes?
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Cutting inflation doesn't reduce prices, it means prices remain high and continue to rise at a slower rate.
Cutting immigration wouldn't mean we'd need fewer houses, it'd mean we'd still having a housing shortage and we'd continue to need even more houses per annum but at a lower rate.
Though you have failed to understand maths or numbers as per usual.
Most recent data is from 2021.
2021 Live Births: 694,685 2021 Deaths: 666,659
694,65 - 666,659 = Natural population growth of 28,026
Birth rate has been below 'replacement level' in theory since 1973. In the past 50 years birth rate has exceeded death rate every single year except 2020 at the height of the pandemic and 1976, despite having a below replacement level birth rate that entire time.
So in the long run prices fall, especially once inflation is cut to negative levels.
Cutting immigration to a net neutral level would mean we needed no new houses at all longer term as the declining birthrate would mean our population gradually falls.
Live births including a large number of recent immigrant parents obviously distorts your stats. Especially as births even then only fractionally above deaths annually now.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Uxbridge in particular is right on the border of the new zone, and the biggest local employer is Heathrow Airport, which is also just inside, and employs mostly blue-collar workers.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
*Actually maybe not Edinburgh as they're in charge with help from the Tories there.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Immigration is booming, nobody can stop it by any means the country would support. It will likely remain in the hundreds of thousands, as there's no reason to think people are going to stop migrating, especially as the world warms.
The UK will quite likely exceed a population of 70 million within a couple of years. 80 million by 2050 looks entirely plausible too.
WHERE ARE WE ALL GOING TO LIVE AND WORK IF WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING?
Italy has a Nationalist right PM now in Meloni, Vox are on the rise in Spain, some polls have Le Pen ahead in France now.
And if they introduce hardline policies to stop the boats that will in turn reduce migration to the UK
You do realise that the boats are a small part of the net migration totals, don't you?
Last year, the UK issued 300000 work visas, including 100000 for the healthcare sector.
Brighton and Hove has been “pushed closer to financial disaster” after Green councillors overspent the council’s budget by more than £3 million last year, figures show.
Statistics discovered by the new Labour council in Brighton and Hove show that the previous Green-led administration had burst the annual budget for the first time “in many years”.
I assume that is basically just meeting the commitments the council had already made, but paying the new inflationary prices for them?
I also think it is ridiculous that councils are not allowed to run deficits or have any real method of income outside of council tax and Westminster bungs. When councils actually owned assets they could decide to subsidise things that made financial losses but were public goods with things that made money, or could leverage their assets to secure debt. Currently the law does not allow that.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
*Actually maybe not Edinburgh as they're in charge with help from the Tories there.
Surely the SNP have abandoned their LEZ policy now that Sturgeon’s gone?
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Immigration is booming, nobody can stop it by any means the country would support. It will likely remain in the hundreds of thousands, as there's no reason to think people are going to stop migrating, especially as the world warms.
The UK will quite likely exceed a population of 70 million within a couple of years. 80 million by 2050 looks entirely plausible too.
WHERE ARE WE ALL GOING TO LIVE AND WORK IF WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING?
Italy has a Nationalist right PM now in Meloni, Vox are on the rise in Spain, some polls have Le Pen ahead in France now.
And if they introduce hardline policies to stop the boats that will in turn reduce migration to the UK
You do realise that the boats are a small part of the net migration totals, don't you?
Last year, the UK issued 300000 work visas, including 100000 for the healthcare sector.
That his solution to the UK not building enough anything for our level of population and immgration is to hope that our neighbours vote in fascists tells you everything you need to know about the Tory Party and British politics. We are completely screwed, no party is even close to grasping the nettle.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
"Vote Conservative and we'll poison your children"
If your kid gets Asthma it's Someone Else's Fault, not yours for successfully voting Tory to be allowed to keep driving that 25 year old V8 Jaaaaaag on the school run.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
"Brownfield", "high rise" or "overseas" seem to be the preferred options.
Not that they want those options for themselves. Oh no, there's no reason they shouldn't have a detached home with a garden but other people wanting a semi-detached with a garden is utterly unreasonable because "my view" might be impaired.
I don't know why we don't build a load of three storey terraced houses with modest gardens, they are high density housing that people actually like living in.
They might make sense in cities, but in towns and suburbs they're a terrible idea in my opinion. Homes should as standard be semi-detached with a driveway for off-road parking and most importantly for charging your car.
Where do you park your electric car and how do you charge it with new terraced homes?
Easy to accommodate a space in front including off street parking/charging for one car with a 5m wide house. A problem for households with more than one car of course. New housing developments should come with good public transport and cycling/walking options and amenities nearby anyway. Building our urban environment around the car has failed on so many fronts, not least human health.
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
I saw somewhere that Glasgow council had to replace 600 vehicles to comply with their own emissions standard
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
*Actually maybe not Edinburgh as they're in charge with help from the Tories there.
Surely the SNP have abandoned their LEZ policy now that Sturgeon’s gone?
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
I saw somewhere that Glasgow council had to replace 600 vehicles to comply with their own emissions standard
A mobile mechanic who I use and who has a contract with them told me something similar. I am now excitedly monitoring Gumtree for a non ULEZ compliant scaffy lorry at a knock down price.
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Immigration is booming, nobody can stop it by any means the country would support. It will likely remain in the hundreds of thousands, as there's no reason to think people are going to stop migrating, especially as the world warms.
The UK will quite likely exceed a population of 70 million within a couple of years. 80 million by 2050 looks entirely plausible too.
WHERE ARE WE ALL GOING TO LIVE AND WORK IF WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING?
Italy has a Nationalist right PM now in Meloni, Vox are on the rise in Spain, some polls have Le Pen ahead in France now.
And if they introduce hardline policies to stop the boats that will in turn reduce migration to the UK
You do realise that the boats are a small part of the net migration totals, don't you?
Last year, the UK issued 300000 work visas, including 100000 for the healthcare sector.
That his solution to the UK not building enough anything for our level of population and immgration is to hope that our neighbours vote in fascists tells you everything you need to know about the Tory Party and British politics. We are completely screwed, no party is even close to grasping the nettle.
It's pretty dismal as an ambition anyway- there is no shame in wanting larger nicer living conditions for people. What is shameful is people who have 4 bed detached homes bought when they are cheap telling others that they can only have them on a dead man's shoes basis.
(But yes, dignified large 4 storey terraces are the way to go. Build up to get desirable floorspace. Put a garage in the ground floor if you must, but if we live at continental densities nice stuff needn't be a car drive away )
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
"Brownfield", "high rise" or "overseas" seem to be the preferred options.
Not that they want those options for themselves. Oh no, there's no reason they shouldn't have a detached home with a garden but other people wanting a semi-detached with a garden is utterly unreasonable because "my view" might be impaired.
I don't know why we don't build a load of three storey terraced houses with modest gardens, they are high density housing that people actually like living in.
They might make sense in cities, but in towns and suburbs they're a terrible idea in my opinion. Homes should as standard be semi-detached with a driveway for off-road parking and most importantly for charging your car.
Where do you park your electric car and how do you charge it with new terraced homes?
There speaks a man inured to the conquering of his heartland.
Labour winning in the home counties. Ill-bred Labour councillors astride the leafy meadows of Surrey. Poorly spoken activists harassing the middle aged women of Aylesbury. What have you lost HYUFD? You have Redcar but a man who's school had no motto is going to take your home.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Absolutely. It’s a no-brainer.
The problem is that there’s something of a brain shortage at the moment.
Brighton and Hove has been “pushed closer to financial disaster” after Green councillors overspent the council’s budget by more than £3 million last year, figures show.
Statistics discovered by the new Labour council in Brighton and Hove show that the previous Green-led administration had burst the annual budget for the first time “in many years”.
I assume that is basically just meeting the commitments the council had already made, but paying the new inflationary prices for them?
I also think it is ridiculous that councils are not allowed to run deficits or have any real method of income outside of council tax and Westminster bungs. When councils actually owned assets they could decide to subsidise things that made financial losses but were public goods with things that made money, or could leverage their assets to secure debt. Currently the law does not allow that.
Quite a lot of councils do have substantial property portfolios. Unfortunately, they get ripped off time and again by developers and builders. Once the Woking fiasco has been brought out into the open, I would not be surprised if that were the case.
Back in the mid-90's, Camden Council decided to offer commercial properties on Hampstead High Street and Haverstock Hill for sale to their tenants. Naturally, they sold them for about a third of their market value - the Tenants could not believe their luck.
Local councillors are very bad at managing projects, because they (a) they don't understand development (instinctively, they don't like it), and (b) they're very gullible, being attracted to big, prestige projects and (c) corruption is endemic in some local authorities.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Hmm nothing to do with Nimbyism more to do with the significant externalities involved I wouldn't necessarily like such a system. Why wouldn't you build a house in the middle of the roundabout at the end of your road, for example?
Now apparently the people in the pockets of Russia are Labour. Not the Tories who have taken literal millions off Russia and appointed the KGB to the House of Lords.
Do have to laugh. This is a thread about the red wall where Labour's lead is now 22% and still rising. Sunak seems to be aiming for 30%.
I'm no fan of Sunak anymore, and thought he was silly with his other comments but he's completely right with what he said on this one.
The idea of putting a ban on new licences in the North Sea, but not banning imports from abroad, will be something that seriously pleases Russia - and Saudi Arabia and other countries - but does absolutely nothing to help either Britain or the environment or climate change.
It is a completely foolish policy.
As a greeny-red, I fully agree. Until the need for hydrocarbons has gone, better to produce our own than import from despots and totalitarians.
It's a perfect example of everything wrong with Labour, they favour what looks good, and it will get the plaudits from the usual eco-lobbyists, over what is good in practice. If the last 15 months haven't demonstrated that we might need to be a bit more self-sufficient when it comes to energy what the hell will?
It is very telling that the message that imposing a carbon tariff on imports will lead to an immediate trade war is embedded in the system of government, as a belief.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
*Actually maybe not Edinburgh as they're in charge with help from the Tories there.
And the Edinburgh and area buses are generally very good and reasonably priced.
A key danger for Labour is to fall into the “Jacinda” trap.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Mildy interestingly, SLab are majoring in doing down the ULEZ scheme in Glasgow (and I presume Edinburgh*). Quite how many 'working class people' drive to work in the centre of cities and therefore have parking provided by their employer or can afford huge parking charges is something upon which to ponder.
*Actually maybe not Edinburgh as they're in charge with help from the Tories there.
The difference with the London change is it is going well beyond the city centre. Not quite, but roughly inside the M25, so most suburbs and even some outer London villagey bits too. Also 24 hours, seven days a week, so catches the tube commuter with a car to do a weekly food shop or travel somewhere at the weekend too. And priced at £12.50 per day.
Would probably have been more sensible to start at £5 per day, Mon-Fri 7-6 and expand from there.
A key danger for Labour is to fall into the “Jacinda” trap.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
They've taken her immigration policy which was successful in getting her elected.
As far as I understand it, there has now been a massive clear-out at Labour HQ, whereby the Blairites are now firmly in charge, chiefly Mandelson. But Campbell is frequently involved as is Blair
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
OK. Did you read the article?
Of course not. I relied on you to precis it for me. We can't go around reading all the articles posted on PB. That is why we have posters posting posts.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Not sure about that; it depends what figures you use. A lot of those 700,00 drivers (RAC figures) may never enter ULEZ; TfL estimates that 160,00 will be affected, and that 90.5% of vehicles in London are already ULEZ-compliant. I think loud, partisan voices are exaggerating the impact of ULEZ.
Near Kreminna, Russian bloggers are reporting - in violently angry terms - of a Russian counter-counter attack that was prepared. Huge numbers of men and equipment built up.
Then waited for two hours for orders.
The only order that came was from HIMARS: "Die, bitches...."
More men and materials lost than in the whole of the Ukrainian counter so far.
Near Kreminna, Russian bloggers are reporting - in violently angry terms - of a Russian counter-counter attack that was prepared. Huge numbers of men and equipment built up.
Then waited for two hours for orders.
The only order that came was from HIMARS: "Die, bitches...."
More men and materials lost than in the whole of the Ukrainian counter so far.
A key danger for Labour is to fall into the “Jacinda” trap.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
They've taken her immigration policy which was successful in getting her elected.
As far as I understand it, there has now been a massive clear-out at Labour HQ, whereby the Blairites are now firmly in charge, chiefly Mandelson. But Campbell is frequently involved as is Blair
I’m not sure Jacinda had an immigration policy.
Her first government was in coalition with NZ’s answer to UKIP, though that was agreed after the election and was not actually popular in itself.
But OK.
Campbell’s involvement surprises a little as he still maintains a posture of detached criticism of the current Labour project on his podcasts.
A key danger for Labour is to fall into the “Jacinda” trap.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
They've taken her immigration policy which was successful in getting her elected.
As far as I understand it, there has now been a massive clear-out at Labour HQ, whereby the Blairites are now firmly in charge, chiefly Mandelson. But Campbell is frequently involved as is Blair
I’m not sure Jacinda had an immigration policy.
Her first government was in coalition with NZ’s answer to UKIP, though that was agreed after the election and was not actually popular in itself.
But OK.
Campbell’s involvement surprises a little as he still maintains a posture of detached criticism of the current Labour project on his podcasts.
He's not listened to as much as Blair or Mandelson. But he is there, frequently.
Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Begins: Shall the Leopards Break Free?
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ukraines-counteroffensive-begins-shall-leopards-break-free ...The fighting will likely get tougher. As Ukrainian forces penetrate deeper into the defences, they will come into range of more Russian artillery firing posts. Moreover, their own artillery will be able to deliver fewer counterbattery missions, and the Ukrainian lines of advance will become more predictable, as they must follow the breaches identified in the minefields. As Ukrainian troops push forwards, they will also be covered by fewer air defences, and will likely come under greater attack by the Russian Aerospace Forces and aviation.
Given these threats, the Ukrainian military is currently trying to achieve three things. Firstly, there is an intense counterbattery duel being fought, with both sides trying to strike each other’s logistics, command and control, reconnaissance, and artillery systems. The Russians are hunting for Ukraine’s artillery with Lancet UAVs. The Ukrainians are utilising Storm Shadow and GMLRS to try to destroy Russian command and control and munitions stockpiles.
Secondly, the Ukrainians are trying to get the Russians to commit their reserves, moving troops from the third defence line to bolster sectors under pressure. Once these troops are pulled forwards, it will become easier to identify the weak points in the Russian lines, where a breakthrough will not be met by a new screen of repositioned forces.
Thirdly, the Ukrainian military is trying to put pressure across the front to advance through the first line of defences in as much breadth as possible. The reason for this is to increase the options for attacking the main defence line and to keep Russian forces uncertain as to where the main effort will be launched. Furthermore, with such a long front, stretching out Russian troops limits their ability to stack units in depth, pulling more forward...
A key danger for Labour is to fall into the “Jacinda” trap.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
I think the likelihood of the latter is near zero given Labour's reliance on union funds, a Starmer government will therefore increase public spending again hugely and tax the rich a bit more but not deliver much else different from Sunak and Hunt (expect perhaps more building on greenbelt too if Starmer has the stomach for it). It will indeed look similar to Ardern's government
Posted mainly for the term 'far-right supergroup' and the very Adolf Hitler vibe that the wee nerd is giving off.
This has to be a spoof, right? Right?!
I mean, the obvious Hitler/dodgy secondhand car salesman look surely doesn't play well. Even if he thinks he's going for Mosely, most people are just going to see Hitler.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
OK. Did you read the article?
Of course not. I relied on you to precis it for me. We can't go around reading all the articles posted on PB. That is why we have posters posting posts.
Fair.
Low levels of capital investment was one of three issues cited. The others were loss of experienced staff and replacement with inexperienced ones, probably exacerbated by Brexit; and poor and under-resourced management, confounded by pisspoor target-setting by central government.
When you add the above to the massive backlog created by Covid, you get the current collapse.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Not sure about that; it depends what figures you use. A lot of those 700,00 drivers (RAC figures) may never enter ULEZ; TfL estimates that 160,00 will be affected, and that 90.5% of vehicles in London are already ULEZ-compliant. I think loud, partisan voices are exaggerating the impact of ULEZ.
160k is the per day number. Not everyday is the same cars! Lots of Londoners are once or twice a week drivers.
Plenty of randoms visiting London a couple of times a year completely unaware of the scheme will get fined.
I'm in favour but its a big change that should have been done more gently and will cost significant number of votes.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Not sure about that; it depends what figures you use. A lot of those 700,00 drivers (RAC figures) may never enter ULEZ; TfL estimates that 160,00 will be affected, and that 90.5% of vehicles in London are already ULEZ-compliant. I think loud, partisan voices are exaggerating the impact of ULEZ.
ULEZ on the edge of London might be different, and I suspect it will poll worst just before it starts.
But there have been a lot of London Conservative council candidates who have tried and failed to get a pro-car bandwagon going. In general, car restrictions infuriate a small number of people but quietly please more.
Ukraine does seem to have a significant advantage when it comes to the NATO kit. From what we've seen of the Russian successes in knocking armoured infantry vehicles, most of the occupants get out alive.
It's easier to replace the Bradleys than it is their newly trained crews.
As Watling notes: ..For Ukraine’s international partners, the summer is likely to be deeply uncomfortable. Losses will mount and success will take time. It is vital, however, that there is no diminution in the strengthening of the training programmes allowing Ukraine to continue to generate combat units, or the mobilisation of defence industry to put supply to the Ukrainian military on a sustainable basis. However much territory is liberated in this offensive, the critical variable is convincing the Kremlin that even if its defeat comes in stages, it is coming...
Near Kreminna, Russian bloggers are reporting - in violently angry terms - of a Russian counter-counter attack that was prepared. Huge numbers of men and equipment built up.
Then waited for two hours for orders.
The only order that came was from HIMARS: "Die, bitches...."
More men and materials lost than in the whole of the Ukrainian counter so far.
I heard a variation of that story that had the Chechen second-in-command present, when most of the info had him wounded down in Zaporizhzhia, so I think there's a deal of confusion in some of the stories going around. As you'd expect. In a war.
There is video of Russia losing five self-propelled artillery pieces in a single field to Ukrainian counterbattery fire though.
Posted mainly for the term 'far-right supergroup' and the very Adolf Hitler vibe that the wee nerd is giving off.
This has to be a spoof, right? Right?!
I mean, the obvious Hitler/dodgy secondhand car salesman look surely doesn't play well. Even if he thinks he's going for Mosely, most people are just going to see Hitler.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
OK. Did you read the article?
Of course not. I relied on you to precis it for me. We can't go around reading all the articles posted on PB. That is why we have posters posting posts.
Fair.
Low levels of capital investment was one of three issues cited. The others were loss of experienced staff and replacement with inexperienced ones, probably exacerbated by Brexit; and poor and under-resourced management, confounded by pisspoor target-setting by central government.
When you add the above to the massive backlog created by Covid, you get the current collapse.
Thanks. And as mentioned, and critically, somewhere in all of that the culture has determined that in general people, the patients, are expendable. Or that the care given can be hugely variable bordering on negligent.
A key danger for Labour is to fall into the “Jacinda” trap.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
Labour don't have the answers because they refuse to ask the big questions. And some of the policy details around the edges (e.g. oil) is mentalist.
But they will not be incompetent, corrupt and cruel like the current lot. So that will have to do. There's a growing prospect of a decently large Labour majority when the election finally comes, and then of them becoming massively unpopular in swift order.
Brexit has demonstrated one very clear reality - people are fed up with being promised things they can't have. More people than not think the country is going in the wrong direction, they can't agree what the correct direction is, and they won't accept further dither and drift and decay. A poisoned chalice for any incoming PM.
Near Kreminna, Russian bloggers are reporting - in violently angry terms - of a Russian counter-counter attack that was prepared. Huge numbers of men and equipment built up.
Then waited for two hours for orders.
The only order that came was from HIMARS: "Die, bitches...."
More men and materials lost than in the whole of the Ukrainian counter so far.
I heard a variation of that story that had the Chechen second-in-command present, when most of the info had him wounded down in Zaporizhzhia, so I think there's a deal of confusion in some of the stories going around. As you'd expect. In a war.
There is video of Russia losing five self-propelled artillery pieces in a single field to Ukrainian counterbattery fire though.
Today is a day of mourning in Lithuania to commemorate the beginning of the Soviet deportations to Siberia in 1940. Almost every Lithuanian family was affected, including mine, by this crime. That's the "glorious" USSR that Putin is so desperately trying to recreate. https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1668924682039439361
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Hmm nothing to do with Nimbyism more to do with the significant externalities involved I wouldn't necessarily like such a system. Why wouldn't you build a house in the middle of the roundabout at the end of your road, for example?
Well I'm not sure who owns the roundabout, I'd have presumed the Council, so if the land's not for sale then I can't see it being an issue.
Also the roundabout isn't exactly big, I would have thought it'd be smaller than the plot needed to build a decent home. So again I'm doubtful it'd be an issue.
But if those obstacles can be overcome then I'm not sure I see the issue. I've seen buildings located insides roundabouts before, including pubs, Churches and others. There's even a house located within the M6 between the northbound and southbound carriages.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
"Vote Conservative and we'll poison your children"
there was an anti ULEZ demo near my area of outer London earlier this year. My wife overheard someone at her hairdressers the next day saying, "did you go to the protest, I could only stay 30 minutes until the fumes got too much for me".
Ukraine does seem to have a significant advantage when it comes to the NATO kit. From what we've seen of the Russian successes in knocking armoured infantry vehicles, most of the occupants get out alive.
It's easier to replace the Bradleys than it is their newly trained crews.
As Watling notes: ..For Ukraine’s international partners, the summer is likely to be deeply uncomfortable. Losses will mount and success will take time. It is vital, however, that there is no diminution in the strengthening of the training programmes allowing Ukraine to continue to generate combat units, or the mobilisation of defence industry to put supply to the Ukrainian military on a sustainable basis. However much territory is liberated in this offensive, the critical variable is convincing the Kremlin that even if its defeat comes in stages, it is coming...
Since WWII, crew survivability has been seen as a key requirement in NATO AFV design, in general. This has meant “spending” on weight, higher silhouettes, and have less firepower/ammunition than their Warsaw Pact equivalents.
So it seems that if you have a design goal for about 60 years and work hard at multiple generations of systems with that goal…
Exclusive: MPs’ verdict that former prime minister misled parliament on course to be published on Thursday morning
A long-awaited report that will find Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate has been signed off by the privileges committee, marking the end of a year-long inquiry that saw him quit the Commons in fury at its findings.
Seven MPs on the cross-party group, which has a Tory majority and Labour chair, held multiple meetings on Tuesday and endorsed the report at around 7pm, the Guardian has been told.
A damning assessment of Johnson’s promise that no Covid rules were broken and claims he was repeatedly assured the gatherings were within the rules is on course to be published on Thursday morning.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Hmm nothing to do with Nimbyism more to do with the significant externalities involved I wouldn't necessarily like such a system. Why wouldn't you build a house in the middle of the roundabout at the end of your road, for example?
Well I'm not sure who owns the roundabout, I'd have presumed the Council, so if the land's not for sale then I can't see it being an issue.
Also the roundabout isn't exactly big, I would have thought it'd be smaller than the plot needed to build a decent home. So again I'm doubtful it'd be an issue.
But if those obstacles can be overcome then I'm not sure I see the issue. I've seen buildings located insides roundabouts before, including pubs, Churches and others. There's even a house located within the M6 between the northbound and southbound carriages.
The Swiss Cottage roundabout has a pub in the middle of it. Quite a large one.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Hmm nothing to do with Nimbyism more to do with the significant externalities involved I wouldn't necessarily like such a system. Why wouldn't you build a house in the middle of the roundabout at the end of your road, for example?
Well I'm not sure who owns the roundabout, I'd have presumed the Council, so if the land's not for sale then I can't see it being an issue.
Also the roundabout isn't exactly big, I would have thought it'd be smaller than the plot needed to build a decent home. So again I'm doubtful it'd be an issue.
But if those obstacles can be overcome then I'm not sure I see the issue. I've seen buildings located insides roundabouts before, including pubs, Churches and others. There's even a house located within the M6 between the northbound and southbound carriages.
M62, shirley.
Thing is even if you bought the land in the middle of the roundabout then how would you get water and other utilities to it and collect the rubbish and recycling and so forth and how would you get out of your front door or move furniture in/out.
These are externalities that you ignore. Hence planning.
Exclusive: MPs’ verdict that former prime minister misled parliament on course to be published on Thursday morning
A long-awaited report that will find Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate has been signed off by the privileges committee, marking the end of a year-long inquiry that saw him quit the Commons in fury at its findings.
Seven MPs on the cross-party group, which has a Tory majority and Labour chair, held multiple meetings on Tuesday and endorsed the report at around 7pm, the Guardian has been told.
A damning assessment of Johnson’s promise that no Covid rules were broken and claims he was repeatedly assured the gatherings were within the rules is on course to be published on Thursday morning.
As far as I understand it, there has now been a massive clear-out at Labour HQ, whereby the Blairites are now firmly in charge, chiefly Mandelson. But Campbell is frequently involved as is Blair
I’m not sure Jacinda had an immigration policy.
Her first government was in coalition with NZ’s answer to UKIP, though that was agreed after the election and was not actually popular in itself.
But OK.
Campbell’s involvement surprises a little as he still maintains a posture of detached criticism of the current Labour project on his podcasts.
Mmm; I've seen newspaper articles saying Mandelson involved, and posters here mentioning "Mandelson and Campbell" as an invocation of the "90s New Labour is back" idea, but Iast time I looked I didn't find any reliable source for Campbell being directly involved now. AIUI he's not even a Labour member...
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
"Vote Conservative and we'll poison your children"
there was an anti ULEZ demo near my area of outer London earlier this year. My wife overheard someone at her hairdressers the next day saying, "did you go to the protest, I could only stay 30 minutes until the fumes got too much for me".
Zero awareness.
The Just Stop Oil team were at at again on London Bridge this morning.
I suppose the point still stands that if we wanted to use our cars less (for whatever reason, global warming, fumes, whatever) then we would use them less. But we don't.
I did smile that they were also blockading double-decker buses one of them literally trumpeting its electric/green credentials with bright green paintwork proclaiming "we care..."
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Hmm nothing to do with Nimbyism more to do with the significant externalities involved I wouldn't necessarily like such a system. Why wouldn't you build a house in the middle of the roundabout at the end of your road, for example?
Well I'm not sure who owns the roundabout, I'd have presumed the Council, so if the land's not for sale then I can't see it being an issue.
Also the roundabout isn't exactly big, I would have thought it'd be smaller than the plot needed to build a decent home. So again I'm doubtful it'd be an issue.
But if those obstacles can be overcome then I'm not sure I see the issue. I've seen buildings located insides roundabouts before, including pubs, Churches and others. There's even a house located within the M6 between the northbound and southbound carriages.
M62 - and that was there before the motorway, so not exactly relevant.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Anyone who is fit to be Prime Minister should be able to show leadership on what the country needs.
Sunak doesn't. He's not fit to be in Downing Street.
Who is? Genuine question.
Hard to tell.
Boris did get the importance of this, though he was a coward after the by-election loss the Lib Dems and a rebellion by Theresa May and others.
Michael Gove has had good things to say in the past, but is the current relevant Secretary of State and has made things much worse not better.
Keir Starmer has said some good things recently, but he's an opportunist and has as much integrity as Boris so it will be interesting to see if he actually comes up with credible policies on this matter or whether he tacks to win the NIMBY vote too.
As much as I dislike Labour I'm starting to think the only way this issue might end up getting tackled is if there's a 1997-style Labour landslide that allows the Government to ignore the NIMBY squeals and pass the legislation the country desperately requires, putting the interests of the country ahead of NIMBY local election concerns.
An 80 seat Tory majority should have been allowed the Tories to tackle this issue themselves, but they've ran away from it instead, for shame.
What I don't get is that just about everywhere there is a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted.
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
The problem is there's not a presumption in favour of planning applications being granted within a matter of days or weeks. There's the probability if you drag things out for years or decades through countless appeals that planning will eventually be granted but that's not good enough.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Hmm nothing to do with Nimbyism more to do with the significant externalities involved I wouldn't necessarily like such a system. Why wouldn't you build a house in the middle of the roundabout at the end of your road, for example?
Well I'm not sure who owns the roundabout, I'd have presumed the Council, so if the land's not for sale then I can't see it being an issue.
Also the roundabout isn't exactly big, I would have thought it'd be smaller than the plot needed to build a decent home. So again I'm doubtful it'd be an issue.
But if those obstacles can be overcome then I'm not sure I see the issue. I've seen buildings located insides roundabouts before, including pubs, Churches and others. There's even a house located within the M6 between the northbound and southbound carriages.
M62 - and that was there before the motorway, so not exactly relevant.
Exclusive: MPs’ verdict that former prime minister misled parliament on course to be published on Thursday morning
A long-awaited report that will find Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate has been signed off by the privileges committee, marking the end of a year-long inquiry that saw him quit the Commons in fury at its findings.
Seven MPs on the cross-party group, which has a Tory majority and Labour chair, held multiple meetings on Tuesday and endorsed the report at around 7pm, the Guardian has been told.
A damning assessment of Johnson’s promise that no Covid rules were broken and claims he was repeatedly assured the gatherings were within the rules is on course to be published on Thursday morning.
"However, the privileges committee is keen to ensure he does not get away scot-free. It is likely to recommend that he be blocked from being given the pass offered to most former MPs granting him privileged access to the Westminster estate."
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
"Brownfield", "high rise" or "overseas" seem to be the preferred options.
Not that they want those options for themselves. Oh no, there's no reason they shouldn't have a detached home with a garden but other people wanting a semi-detached with a garden is utterly unreasonable because "my view" might be impaired.
I don't know why we don't build a load of three storey terraced houses with modest gardens, they are high density housing that people actually like living in.
They might make sense in cities, but in towns and suburbs they're a terrible idea in my opinion. Homes should as standard be semi-detached with a driveway for off-road parking and most importantly for charging your car.
Where do you park your electric car and how do you charge it with new terraced homes?
Lots of London terraces have off road parking at the front with a rear garden. Mine was lovely.
And he's back to "respecting what local communities want" when it comes to NIMBYism and the total lack of housing.
Sunak doesn't get it and will never get my vote.
The conservatives are squeezed between what the country needs (infrastructure, housing) & what their core vote wants (build absolutely nothing anywhere).
Not just their core vote, 59% of voters overall oppose allowing more homes to be built on the greenbelt.
If Starmer becomes PM and as he suggests he will do goes beyond building more houses on brownbelt land to allowing much more development in the greenbelt he will face huge opposition, especially in the South and outer London surbubs (even if he does win Bart's vote)
Do any of the 59% have a plan for where everyone is going to live in the decades ahead? Tent shanty-towns in Surrey I suppose.
If we cut immigration significantly we wouldn't need so many new houses.
The UK birthrate is only 1.6 now, well below replacement level
Cutting inflation doesn't reduce prices, it means prices remain high and continue to rise at a slower rate.
Cutting immigration wouldn't mean we'd need fewer houses, it'd mean we'd still having a housing shortage and we'd continue to need even more houses per annum but at a lower rate.
Though you have failed to understand maths or numbers as per usual.
Most recent data is from 2021.
2021 Live Births: 694,685 2021 Deaths: 666,659
694,65 - 666,659 = Natural population growth of 28,026
Birth rate has been below 'replacement level' in theory since 1973. In the past 50 years birth rate has exceeded death rate every single year except 2020 at the height of the pandemic and 1976, despite having a below replacement level birth rate that entire time.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
It isn't the right thing to do, it's utter bullshit. Particulate levels are far higher on the tube, which people will be forced to crowd into more by this unjust infringement of liberty.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
It isn't the right thing to do, it's utter bullshit. Particulate levels are far higher on the tube, which people will be forced to crowd into more by this unjust infringement of liberty.
One person's liberty to fill the air with harmful particulates takes away another person' s liberty to breathe clean air, so it is really a question of balancing competing liberties not infringing liberty. The ULEZ is an excellent policy, government action to eliminate a genuine, life-destroying problem. And I say this as someone who was forced to replace my car to comply with it.
So having turned round and gone home again yesterday morning when the news broke from Nottingham, today we went in to do our planned shopping. The city is bathed in sunlight, the market square filled with people having lunch or coffee, and there was little or no overt police presence even close to the locations that featured in the terrible crimes yesterday.
Whilst one could not help but have a feeling of sadness which has grown as the details of the victims emerged today, it was reassuring and gratifying to see that the shadow has not darkened the city.
Sam Freedman had posted a good article, based on a detailed investigation, on what’s wrong with the NHS.
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
OK. Did you read the article?
Of course not. I relied on you to precis it for me. We can't go around reading all the articles posted on PB. That is why we have posters posting posts.
Fair.
Low levels of capital investment was one of three issues cited. The others were loss of experienced staff and replacement with inexperienced ones, probably exacerbated by Brexit; and poor and under-resourced management, confounded by pisspoor target-setting by central government.
When you add the above to the massive backlog created by Covid, you get the current collapse.
The NHS's issues are the same as most public sector body's issues - a perverse incentive flow. Money comes from the Government. More money comes when the service is seen to be in need, even more comes when it is in crisis. If the money came instead from the end users, who were able to choose which treatment providers to patronise, medical treatment would be more like food shopping, and the better for it. The same goes for schools.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 16m Another notable Q earlier from Theresa Villiers: huge Tory cheer for an attack on Sadiq Khan's Ulez scheme – they really think its unpopularity might swing the Uxbridge by-election
ULEZ expansion is a big change and will certainly cost Labour votes.
It is probably the right thing to do but the 700,000 drivers who will have to pay or buy replacement cars are going to be far, far more likely to vote based on this issue than the several million who will gain marginally in air quality and less severe increases in fares/taxes elsewhere.
Not sure about that; it depends what figures you use. A lot of those 700,00 drivers (RAC figures) may never enter ULEZ; TfL estimates that 160,00 will be affected, and that 90.5% of vehicles in London are already ULEZ-compliant. I think loud, partisan voices are exaggerating the impact of ULEZ.
ULEZ on the edge of London might be different, and I suspect it will poll worst just before it starts.
But there have been a lot of London Conservative council candidates who have tried and failed to get a pro-car bandwagon going. In general, car restrictions infuriate a small number of people but quietly please more.
Worth noting that when Greater Manchester proposed a congestion charge back in 2009-ish (£5 charge to enter the area within the M60), it was heavily defeated in a referendum in all 10 districts (even those entirely outside the M60). Granted Greater Manchester isn't Greater London, but over 30% of Greater Mancunians don't have access to a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_congestion_charge
Comments
Cutting immigration wouldn't mean we'd need fewer houses, it'd mean we'd still having a housing shortage and we'd continue to need even more houses per annum but at a lower rate.
Though you have failed to understand maths or numbers as per usual.
Most recent data is from 2021.
2021 Live Births: 694,685
2021 Deaths: 666,659
694,65 - 666,659 = Natural population growth of 28,026
Birth rate has been below 'replacement level' in theory since 1973. In the past 50 years birth rate has exceeded death rate every single year except 2020 at the height of the pandemic and 1976, despite having a below replacement level birth rate that entire time.
And if they introduce hardline policies to stop the boats that will in turn reduce migration to the UK
Having front panniers would be good but I travel light as possible anyway.
This is both cruel and useless.
Russia Doubles Trained Dolphins Defending Base Against Ukrainian Attacks
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/russia-dolphins-ukrainian-attacks/
So the private sector is doing its bit and we have many times rehearsed the pipeline and lifespan of a plot of ground to new house so I don't think "landbanking" is as much of a thing as people like sometimes to make out (see also: "foreign absentee landlords/empty properties").
So would you have the govt embark on a huge housebuilding programme and if so via what agents/process?
Where do you park your electric car and how do you charge it with new terraced homes?
Cutting immigration to a net neutral level would mean we needed no new houses at all longer term as the declining birthrate would mean our population gradually falls.
Live births including a large number of recent immigrant parents obviously distorts your stats. Especially as births even then only fractionally above deaths annually now.
Wonder who he means.
George Russell has said that three unnamed drivers on the current F1 grid "don't have the spatial awareness of others" when racing wheel-to-wheel 👀
#CanadianGP
https://twitter.com/autosport/status/1668921462411935744
*Actually maybe not Edinburgh as they're in charge with help from the Tories there.
There should be certainty about your ability to have permission before you buy land and getting permission should not significantly change the value of land as a result, and the process should take days or weeks not years. Then small businesses can get involved.
If you're a small independent business with not much capital then you can't just build a home where its needed. You need to buy some land, hold onto it and hope that you get permission and that it doesn't take years to get that permission. And why do that without certainty you'll have the permission, which means they don't do it at all. The risk of not getting permission means it isn't worth investing your limited capital into land to develop.
In almost all the developed world without our Byzantine planning system and with a rational zoning system instead it is small developers build the majority of homes, often by only one home at a time, instead of large banks of estates by an oligopoly of large developers who control the market and face little competition thanks to the planning constraints that put off small competitors.
Last year, the UK issued 300000 work visas, including 100000 for the healthcare sector.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics
Compared with 45000 people in small boats.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-december-2022/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-december-2022
I also think it is ridiculous that councils are not allowed to run deficits or have any real method of income outside of council tax and Westminster bungs. When councils actually owned assets they could decide to subsidise things that made financial losses but were public goods with things that made money, or could leverage their assets to secure debt. Currently the law does not allow that.
I am now excitedly monitoring Gumtree for a non ULEZ compliant scaffy lorry at a knock down price.
(But yes, dignified large 4 storey terraces are the way to go. Build up to get desirable floorspace. Put a garage in the ground floor if you must, but if we live at continental densities nice stuff needn't be a car drive away )
In large part, we just don’t bother investing in capital infrastructure (beds, CT machines, computer systems). We are strikingly out of sync with global norms.
It’s the British economic problem writ large.
https://twitter.com/samfr/status/1668883001231458304?s=46&t=L9g_woCIqbo1MTuBFCK0xg
Back in the mid-90's, Camden Council decided to offer commercial properties on Hampstead High Street and Haverstock Hill for sale to their tenants. Naturally, they sold them for about a third of their market value - the Tenants could not believe their luck.
Local councillors are very bad at managing projects, because they (a) they don't understand development (instinctively, they don't like it), and (b) they're very gullible, being attracted to big, prestige projects and (c) corruption is endemic in some local authorities.
Telling, as to how effective it might be.
Jacinda made a lot of promises, and pretty much failed to deliver anything except for huge increases in the number of public sector workers. NZ is a fundamentally worse-managed society than it was before she came in.
It’s clear that Labour need to be parsimonious in their promises, and aggressive in their approach to public sector reform.
But rather, it's such a large institution with no proper management or accountability that many of its employees don't really care about the level of service that is dispensed to its "customers". If they lose a few patients here and there unless they have been unplugging the life support machine to do the hoovering they know that no one will really know or care.
Apart from the family, obvs, but they, together with the patients, are the least important part of the NHS as far as the NHS is concerned.
Would probably have been more sensible to start at £5 per day, Mon-Fri 7-6 and expand from there.
As far as I understand it, there has now been a massive clear-out at Labour HQ, whereby the Blairites are now firmly in charge, chiefly Mandelson. But Campbell is frequently involved as is Blair
Then waited for two hours for orders.
The only order that came was from HIMARS: "Die, bitches...."
More men and materials lost than in the whole of the Ukrainian counter so far.
Trump Indictment: Israeli Intelligence Fears Ex-president Compromised Top Secret Intel
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2023-06-13/ty-article/.highlight/trump-doc-probe-concern-in-israel-former-presidents-actions-compromised-its-security/
Or are the charges perhaps merited ?
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/hitler-rehearsing-speech-front-mirror-1925/
Her first government was in coalition with NZ’s answer to UKIP, though that was agreed after the election and was not actually popular in itself.
But OK.
Campbell’s involvement surprises a little as he still maintains a posture of detached criticism of the current Labour project on his podcasts.
The BOE will have to raise interest rates impacting mortgages.
The key for Labour is to ensure voters blame the Tories .
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ukraines-counteroffensive-begins-shall-leopards-break-free
...The fighting will likely get tougher. As Ukrainian forces penetrate deeper into the defences, they will come into range of more Russian artillery firing posts. Moreover, their own artillery will be able to deliver fewer counterbattery missions, and the Ukrainian lines of advance will become more predictable, as they must follow the breaches identified in the minefields. As Ukrainian troops push forwards, they will also be covered by fewer air defences, and will likely come under greater attack by the Russian Aerospace Forces and aviation.
Given these threats, the Ukrainian military is currently trying to achieve three things. Firstly, there is an intense counterbattery duel being fought, with both sides trying to strike each other’s logistics, command and control, reconnaissance, and artillery systems. The Russians are hunting for Ukraine’s artillery with Lancet UAVs. The Ukrainians are utilising Storm Shadow and GMLRS to try to destroy Russian command and control and munitions stockpiles.
Secondly, the Ukrainians are trying to get the Russians to commit their reserves, moving troops from the third defence line to bolster sectors under pressure. Once these troops are pulled forwards, it will become easier to identify the weak points in the Russian lines, where a breakthrough will not be met by a new screen of repositioned forces.
Thirdly, the Ukrainian military is trying to put pressure across the front to advance through the first line of defences in as much breadth as possible. The reason for this is to increase the options for attacking the main defence line and to keep Russian forces uncertain as to where the main effort will be launched. Furthermore, with such a long front, stretching out Russian troops limits their ability to stack units in depth, pulling more forward...
I mean, the obvious Hitler/dodgy secondhand car salesman look surely doesn't play well. Even if he thinks he's going for Mosely, most people are just going to see Hitler.
Low levels of capital investment was one of three issues cited. The others were loss of experienced staff and replacement with inexperienced ones, probably exacerbated by Brexit; and poor and under-resourced management, confounded by pisspoor target-setting by central government.
When you add the above to the massive backlog created by Covid, you get the current collapse.
Plenty of randoms visiting London a couple of times a year completely unaware of the scheme will get fined.
I'm in favour but its a big change that should have been done more gently and will cost significant number of votes.
But there have been a lot of London Conservative council candidates who have tried and failed to get a pro-car bandwagon going. In general, car restrictions infuriate a small number of people but quietly please more.
It's easier to replace the Bradleys than it is their newly trained crews.
As Watling notes:
..For Ukraine’s international partners, the summer is likely to be deeply uncomfortable. Losses will mount and success will take time. It is vital, however, that there is no diminution in the strengthening of the training programmes allowing Ukraine to continue to generate combat units, or the mobilisation of defence industry to put supply to the Ukrainian military on a sustainable basis. However much territory is liberated in this offensive, the critical variable is convincing the Kremlin that even if its defeat comes in stages, it is coming...
There is video of Russia losing five self-propelled artillery pieces in a single field to Ukrainian counterbattery fire though.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1668959494779420675
Wonder if we'll see anything to substantiate this story about Kreminna.
https://youtu.be/MIAJemmO-bg?t=239
But they will not be incompetent, corrupt and cruel like the current lot. So that will have to do. There's a growing prospect of a decently large Labour majority when the election finally comes, and then of them becoming massively unpopular in swift order.
Brexit has demonstrated one very clear reality - people are fed up with being promised things they can't have. More people than not think the country is going in the wrong direction, they can't agree what the correct direction is, and they won't accept further dither and drift and decay. A poisoned chalice for any incoming PM.
Today is a day of mourning in Lithuania to commemorate the beginning of the Soviet deportations to Siberia in 1940. Almost every Lithuanian family was affected, including mine, by this crime. That's the "glorious" USSR that Putin is so desperately trying to recreate.
https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1668924682039439361
Also the roundabout isn't exactly big, I would have thought it'd be smaller than the plot needed to build a decent home. So again I'm doubtful it'd be an issue.
But if those obstacles can be overcome then I'm not sure I see the issue. I've seen buildings located insides roundabouts before, including pubs, Churches and others. There's even a house located within the M6 between the northbound and southbound carriages.
Zero awareness.
So it seems that if you have a design goal for about 60 years and work hard at multiple generations of systems with that goal…
Exclusive: MPs’ verdict that former prime minister misled parliament on course to be published on Thursday morning
A long-awaited report that will find Boris Johnson misled parliament over Partygate has been signed off by the privileges committee, marking the end of a year-long inquiry that saw him quit the Commons in fury at its findings.
Seven MPs on the cross-party group, which has a Tory majority and Labour chair, held multiple meetings on Tuesday and endorsed the report at around 7pm, the Guardian has been told.
A damning assessment of Johnson’s promise that no Covid rules were broken and claims he was repeatedly assured the gatherings were within the rules is on course to be published on Thursday morning.
Thing is even if you bought the land in the middle of the roundabout then how would you get water and other utilities to it and collect the rubbish and recycling and so forth and how would you get out of your front door or move furniture in/out.
These are externalities that you ignore. Hence planning.
I suppose the point still stands that if we wanted to use our cars less (for whatever reason, global warming, fumes, whatever) then we would use them less. But we don't.
I did smile that they were also blockading double-decker buses one of them literally trumpeting its electric/green credentials with bright green paintwork proclaiming "we care..."
"Mental health problems" is often code for "paranoid from too much skunk".
Though I don't think anyone has said anything about this particular incident yet, so that is pure speculation.
Whilst one could not help but have a feeling of sadness which has grown as the details of the victims emerged today, it was reassuring and gratifying to see that the shadow has not darkened the city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester_congestion_charge