The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
This won't change your view in any way, but it is worth saying the following.
The situation with high housing costs is remarkably similar in many western countries. There are areas where demand is high reflected in high land values and other areas where demand is low reflected in low land values. High house prices in areas of high demand are largely a consequence of demand plus historically cheap money for the last 2 decades. (although build cost inflation means that they are no longer that high, in objective terms).
It is just fundamentally wrong to blame this situation on 'planning' and misguided to believe it will be solved by allowing everyone to build anywhere by 'removing planning obstacles'. The cost of the latter approach would be unthinkably high, turning the countryside around major urban areas in to inefficient, unplanned sprawl with little or no supporting infrastructure. It is hard to see what, if any, benefits would accrue, other than to educate people why a planning system is needed.
Look at Japan. Look at Tokyo.
Same low rates. Lower actually.
Same population density. Higher actually.
Same growing population in cities.
Different planning system.
Result?
We have faced rampant price rises. They have stable prices.
We face shrinking houses in new builds. Their new builds are better quality and bigger floor space than older stock.
Name one way our system is doing a better job than Japan's.
Japan's population is declining at quite a significant rate. It's down by more than 3 million since its peak in 2010.
On Council House waiting lists. Some (including my own) have choice based letting. Which involves having a number of points enabling you to bid on certain properties. And then it's first come first served. I successfully bid 3 days after registration. At midnight on the Wednesday/Thursday when the weekly lists of available properties are released. Then it was just a case of visiting and agreeing and getting the keys. Took 7 weeks in total from registration to being moved in. And they were closed for four of them over Christmas New Year.
I applied for a council flat a few years ago and was told I'd have to wait around 40 years on the list.
There is no "list" with choice based letting. You register. You bid. You are limited to three bids a week I think.
And what do you bid with your need points....been a single male on that list for 50 years you still have the need points you started with
You're having great trouble understanding it is a completely different system. There is no list. I'm a single male and it took fewer than two months from registration to keys, including Christmas and New Year. If you are eligible for a property you can bid. If you put in the first bid you get the property. How long you've been waiting is irrelevant. There were only 2 in the County I was eligible for. I got one. There is no "waiting list".
They're [the government] in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
I agree in essence. But like sandpit on PT you are skewing the language towards your favoured option.
Public services would need to be 'cut'. Just saying 'rethought' is already finessing and spinning things.
If we want that honest 'grown up' conversation (which we do) it has to feature the unvarnished truth.
“Rethought” is not the same as “cut”
It implies doing less, but doing it better: ie narrower scope but appropriately funded and well executed. “Cut” is just taking a slice off all budgets without thinking about what the government *should* be doing.
The NHS is a classic. The argument is never “what do we want to achieve and how do we do it in the best possible way”. It’s always “the budget is only up 4% not 5%. You’re killing the NHS!”
On Council House waiting lists. Some (including my own) have choice based letting. Which involves having a number of points enabling you to bid on certain properties. And then it's first come first served. I successfully bid 3 days after registration. At midnight on the Wednesday/Thursday when the weekly lists of available properties are released. Then it was just a case of visiting and agreeing and getting the keys. Took 7 weeks in total from registration to being moved in. And they were closed for four of them over Christmas New Year.
How many points did you have because many found the points that they got ended up in them falling down the queue as they had less points because they had 1 less child and the fact they had been waiting 2 years was irrelevant because some who has 1 more kid but was only waiting 3 months took priority
The points enable you to bid on certain properties. For example. I was newly single but my kids grown up. So I was only eligible to bid on one bedroom flats. There is no "queue". You can't "fall down" it. It is all Online. They come out weekly, and once registered, they have a button marked "bid" next to them if you qualify for a particular property. Or "ineligible" if you don't. I bid on two. And was fastest finger first on one of them.
You say there is no queue but I know people who went for a council flat when mid twenties and they are still waiting 30 years later and keep finding their position number is larger
That's because those Councils choose to operate that way.There is no queue under a choice based letting system. Nor is there a waiting list. Councils can introduce it if they want to.
Where was this?
I've not worked in this area recently, but when I did, it was hugely different across the country. Some areas had a surplus of council housing, so a reasonable amount of turnover, but most of London was almost impossible. There was so little housing that you had to have significant additional needs to get anywhere near a flat.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Indeed. Fundamentally, the cost of accommodation is a total rip-off - and it's even worse for renters than mortgage payers. Myself, if I was a renter - even living as I do in a modest one-bed flat - rather than owning outright then I'd be paying about as much for housing as all my other basic bills put together, including a healthy food budget as well as energy, TV/broadband and water.
This is why there's been such a mass pile-in into the BTL landlord business by small investors. It was money for old rope for anybody who could get hold of a BTL mortgage on an interest-only basis, and it's still money for old rope for any landlord who owns the rental outright or has a decent equity share. Just set up a little flat, install a renter and improve your own standard of living immensely by extracting a large chunk of their earned income for yourself. It's actually quite surprising that more people haven't done it when you think about it.
Tax rates on rents are high, compared to the untaxed status of enjoying the occupancy of a house you own yourself. Otherwise the world would indeed look like you suggest, and other countries like Switzerland look a lot more like the mass rental scenario.
Tax rates on rents are absurdly low, lower than tax rates on earned income. No NI on income from rents.
Not true, actually. I have a little field inherited from an ancestor and kept for sentimental/environmental reasons, and I get £80 pa for it from the farmer. But I have to pay NI on that. Class 2 or 3. Apparently it counts as a business.
Why doesn’t he just fill your freezer once a year like everyone else in that situation?
They're even more densely populated in their residential areas than us, yet it works. Without concreting over the entire country.
That part I think is largely geography -- when your country is a mix of mountains and river plains then you build massively on the plains because the mountains aren't feasibly habitable for large numbers of people. One of the characteristic views of Japan is the urban sprawl on the flat right up to the base of the wooded hills and mountains.
Incidentally the Japanese are not averse to a bit of concrete -- the construction state is a nice cosy relationship between the building industry, politicians and banking which will happily build less-than-obviously necessary bridges, dams, etc in scenic areas.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Well, we've had idiot Tory MPs saying daft/stupid/offensive things.
So a Labour MP has decided to join in - Andrew Western, MP for Stratford and Urmston - and show his disdain for the principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right of those accused of criminal offences to get legal advice.
Perhaps his party leader could give him a few lessons on the basics of the criminal justice system.
While I basically agree with your point, example cited are public record. And thus kosher as a political criticism.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
Having said all that. There are 36 flats in this building. Just found out 5 of them are currently empty. So there isn't a proper shortage of Housing Association properties up here. Incidentally. They aren't cheap. But. I have security of tenure. A warden for half the day. And repairs tend to be same day if urgent, same week for everything else.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Could there be some Tory-schism fatigue as well? Referendum Party > UKIP > Reform?
And that's only the ones I'm recollecting right now.
They're even more densely populated in their residential areas than us, yet it works. Without concreting over the entire country.
That part I think is largely geography -- when your country is a mix of mountains and river plains then you build massively on the plains because the mountains aren't feasibly habitable for large numbers of people. One of the characteristic views of Japan is the urban sprawl on the flat right up to the base of the wooded hills and mountains.
Incidentally the Japanese are not averse to a bit of concrete -- the construction state is a nice cosy relationship between the building industry, politicians and banking which will happily build less-than-obviously necessary bridges, dams, etc in scenic areas.
They're also learning more every year about earthquakes. In particular liquefaction takes large areas out of building all together.
Well, we've had idiot Tory MPs saying daft/stupid/offensive things.
So a Labour MP has decided to join in - Andrew Western, MP for Stratford and Urmston - and show his disdain for the principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right of those accused of criminal offences to get legal advice.
Perhaps his party leader could give him a few lessons on the basics of the criminal justice system.
While I basically agree with your point, example cited are public record. And thus kosher as a political criticism.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
Well yes, but by Andrew Western's logic no defence lawyer should ever become an MP.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
They're [the government] in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
I agree in essence. But like sandpit on PT you are skewing the language towards your favoured option.
Public services would need to be 'cut'. Just saying 'rethought' is already finessing and spinning things.
If we want that honest 'grown up' conversation (which we do) it has to feature the unvarnished truth.
“Rethought” is not the same as “cut”
It implies doing less, but doing it better: ie narrower scope but appropriately funded and well executed. “Cut” is just taking a slice off all budgets without thinking about what the government *should* be doing.
The NHS is a classic. The argument is never “what do we want to achieve and how do we do it in the best possible way”. It’s always “the budget is only up 4% not 5%. You’re killing the NHS!”
This is not true. People -- those in the NHS, researchers, think tanks, Dept of Health civil servants, government and more -- are constantly rethinking how to run the NHS, at all levels. (Indeed, one of the problems the NHS faces, I would suggest, is how often the government loves a big re-organisation of the NHS.)
I suggest there is more time and effort spent on rethinking the NHS than there is on most any other publicly-funded endeavour.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in the frozen north and left-behind regions. It solves the housing problem, levelling up and rebalancing the economy away from an overheated London in one fell swoop.
Not really
There are areas in the run down north with plenty of empty housing, just look at the photo at the top of this article....
Yes, hence the new town model, even if based on refurbishment, to include attracting new jobs. Rather than dumping grounds for borderline mentally ill drug addicts and thieves.
Why on earth would any company set up in a newly created new town that no doubt has awful connections to anywhere with any sort of existing economy ?
Government subsidies, tax concessions, northern powerhouse rail? Britain has built new towns before; there's nothing new.
NPR won't land until 2045 onwards and will connect Warrington, Manchester and Marsden, no new stops planned, just linking existing populations.
So you want to create new towns, with no links to existing economies and hope that lower taxes will attract businesses there ?
Our London based media's obsession over trains is part of the problem. Over 90% of the UK travels via Road, not Rail, especially in the North.
If you want new towns then new motorway junctions, or better yet new motorways with new junctions is the way to do it quickly. Rail can catch up afterwards.
Not just in the North, in the South away from London it's very possible too. Eg build a new motorway linking Oxford to Cambridge, extended to Bristol and Norwich perhaps, and with a junction approximately every 5 miles. New towns could spring up along that route, and not in or linked to London.
Sorry but new roads don’t solve problems - and it’s probably worth watching c4 to,or row to see Ben Elton comparing rail around London and the rest of the UK.
That sort of timid, self defeating attitude is part of the problem. Of course new roads do solve problems.
I live in a fast growing new town (they do still exist, just not enough of them). We have thousands of homes being built, all of which are getting snapped up. New shops, businesses, industry opening too.
And what is the key new transport infrastructure underpinning this? One new motorway junction, with one new A road.
There's talk we might get a train station in a few years time, I'm not holding my breath, but the new motorway junction? People who get about by road are happy with that. And outside London it's roads, not rail, that truly matters. Of course London is different but WE ARE NOT LONDON.
The problem here is that what you are now making is an argument for planning, which you claim to reject. The reason why everything is working in your development is more likely than not because decades of work went in to the new trunk roads and motorway junctions, negotiated by the Council with Highways England and the government, as well as the co-siting of commercial development and community infrastructure, and finding ways to fund all this, including through Section 106 contributions by developers. That is what planning is and the value that it adds. If you get rid of planning then none of that happens, houses get built but you can't get anywhere, there are crap roads, no shops, infrastructure etc.
You could say ok, why not just zone the land through the plan making process and then have a design code rather than having to go through the pain and delay of needing planning permission. You could well do that and some countries do. The main problem is it makes it harder to go through the first stage of the process (the plan making stage) because you need to be absolutely sure that everything is solved before you can confidently rely on a design code for the purposes of delivery.
A design code is just a delivery mechanism not an alternative to having a planning system. Looking at your example of Japan, my guess is just that they are better at planning because the state is more assertive and organised at building infrastructure. I'd guess the falling prices are more to do with historic deflation than falling demand. But I've never studied the Japanese system in detail so don't feel able to authoritively comment on it.
In summary the problem is not that a planning system exists in the first place, but because the one we have isn't working very well.
Sorry that's not remotely an argument for planning, you could not be more wrong. There isn't time for decades of work as our population levels weren't the same decades ago, and if decades of work are going into it then no wonder everything is so broken as the facts decades ago are not the facts today.
If everything is planned then I'm curious where the new railway station, new schools, new GPs and everything else are. None of them exist. I still am registered at my old GP in my old town, I've not transferred my kids schooling either, and drive across the river to a different town for those.
Organic development works better. If houses are built, but no schools etc then people will vote for what they need. Unsurprisingly at the local elections the local Lib Dem (who got elected) was not campaigning on NIMBYism, but supporting new GPs to built and new schools to be built. Because that's what the new residents need and its not all there yet. Supermarkets have opened etc because businesses like Aldi and ASDA will open branches where their customers are. Thousands of people move into an area, they'll be in like a shot to get a shot at those customers.
The state is bloody useless at planning. Design transportation, sure, then let it organically grow in what's zoned there.
Ok, so you don't think there should be planning, with the exception of road building. There should be no state provision for day to day needs etc - shops, healthcare etc, because this will follow where people choose to build houses because politicians will be elected to make it happen. There would be no public realm, or town centres, just housing and roads, and supermarkets.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in the frozen north and left-behind regions. It solves the housing problem, levelling up and rebalancing the economy away from an overheated London in one fell swoop.
Not really
There are areas in the run down north with plenty of empty housing, just look at the photo at the top of this article....
Yes, hence the new town model, even if based on refurbishment, to include attracting new jobs. Rather than dumping grounds for borderline mentally ill drug addicts and thieves.
Why on earth would any company set up in a newly created new town that no doubt has awful connections to anywhere with any sort of existing economy ?
Government subsidies, tax concessions, northern powerhouse rail? Britain has built new towns before; there's nothing new.
NPR won't land until 2045 onwards and will connect Warrington, Manchester and Marsden, no new stops planned, just linking existing populations.
So you want to create new towns, with no links to existing economies and hope that lower taxes will attract businesses there ?
Our London based media's obsession over trains is part of the problem. Over 90% of the UK travels via Road, not Rail, especially in the North.
If you want new towns then new motorway junctions, or better yet new motorways with new junctions is the way to do it quickly. Rail can catch up afterwards.
Not just in the North, in the South away from London it's very possible too. Eg build a new motorway linking Oxford to Cambridge, extended to Bristol and Norwich perhaps, and with a junction approximately every 5 miles. New towns could spring up along that route, and not in or linked to London.
Sorry but new roads don’t solve problems - and it’s probably worth watching c4 to,or row to see Ben Elton comparing rail around London and the rest of the UK.
That sort of timid, self defeating attitude is part of the problem. Of course new roads do solve problems.
I live in a fast growing new town (they do still exist, just not enough of them). We have thousands of homes being built, all of which are getting snapped up. New shops, businesses, industry opening too.
And what is the key new transport infrastructure underpinning this? One new motorway junction, with one new A road.
There's talk we might get a train station in a few years time, I'm not holding my breath, but the new motorway junction? People who get about by road are happy with that. And outside London it's roads, not rail, that truly matters. Of course London is different but WE ARE NOT LONDON.
The problem here is that what you are now making is an argument for planning, which you claim to reject. The reason why everything is working in your development is more likely than not because decades of work went in to the new trunk roads and motorway junctions, negotiated by the Council with Highways England and the government, as well as the co-siting of commercial development and community infrastructure, and finding ways to fund all this, including through Section 106 contributions by developers. That is what planning is and the value that it adds. If you get rid of planning then none of that happens, houses get built but you can't get anywhere, there are crap roads, no shops, infrastructure etc.
You could say ok, why not just zone the land through the plan making process and then have a design code rather than having to go through the pain and delay of needing planning permission. You could well do that and some countries do. The main problem is it makes it harder to go through the first stage of the process (the plan making stage) because you need to be absolutely sure that everything is solved before you can confidently rely on a design code for the purposes of delivery.
A design code is just a delivery mechanism not an alternative to having a planning system. Looking at your example of Japan, my guess is just that they are better at planning because the state is more assertive and organised at building infrastructure. I'd guess the falling prices are more to do with historic deflation than falling demand. But I've never studied the Japanese system in detail so don't feel able to authoritively comment on it.
In summary the problem is not that a planning system exists in the first place, but because the one we have isn't working very well.
Sorry that's not remotely an argument for planning, you could not be more wrong. There isn't time for decades of work as our population levels weren't the same decades ago, and if decades of work are going into it then no wonder everything is so broken as the facts decades ago are not the facts today.
If everything is planned then I'm curious where the new railway station, new schools, new GPs and everything else are. None of them exist. I still am registered at my old GP in my old town, I've not transferred my kids schooling either, and drive across the river to a different town for those.
Organic development works better. If houses are built, but no schools etc then people will vote for what they need. Unsurprisingly at the local elections the local Lib Dem (who got elected) was not campaigning on NIMBYism, but supporting new GPs to built and new schools to be built. Because that's what the new residents need and its not all there yet. Supermarkets have opened etc because businesses like Aldi and ASDA will open branches where their customers are. Thousands of people move into an area, they'll be in like a shot to get a shot at those customers.
The state is bloody useless at planning. Design transportation, sure, then let it organically grow in what's zoned there.
Ok, so you don't think there should be planning, with the exception of road building. There should be no state provision for day to day needs etc - shops, healthcare etc, because this will follow where people choose to build houses because politicians will be elected to make it happen. There would be no public realm, or town centres, just housing and roads, and supermarkets.
This all sounds like a total disaster to me.
No. I think there should be healthcare, and schools etc but it should evolve depending upon what the voters need.
Not spend decades planning what was needed decades ago, but is totally obsolete decades later as the facts have changed so much all your plans were based on faulty assumptions.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
Well, we've had idiot Tory MPs saying daft/stupid/offensive things.
So a Labour MP has decided to join in - Andrew Western, MP for Stratford and Urmston - and show his disdain for the principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right of those accused of criminal offences to get legal advice.
Perhaps his party leader could give him a few lessons on the basics of the criminal justice system.
While I basically agree with your point, example cited are public record. And thus kosher as a political criticism.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
Well yes, but by Andrew Western's logic no defence lawyer should ever become an MP.
Bad logic, I agree. For one thing, successful bleeding-heart defense lawyers have sometimes turned out to be throw-the-book-at-em judges.
Still a legitimate hit if hardly silver bullet. And certainly is noteworthy, electorally-speaking, IF a candidate's client list is heavily skewed in some direction, or another.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
For those betting on Biden's nomination and / or the 2024 race, take a look at what has happened over the past 96 hours in the US.
The questions around whether Joe Biden took illicit payments are starting to multiply (text of the WhatsApp message is at the end of this e-mail). Maybe more importantly, the story seems to be breaking out of the right-wing press into other news sources. CBS has been interviewing the IRS Whistleblower who claims the case was obstructed and asking for answers. The New York Times - of all places - asked the WH Press Secretary about the allegations at the Friday press conference (“It’s a reasonable question to ask. The president of the United States is involved, as this message seems to suggest, in some sort of a coercive conversation for business dealings by his son. Is that something that, if he wasn’t, then maybe you should tell us?").
It does not look as though this story is going away and, if anything, it seems to be gaining strength, and the Administration's blocking answers do not seem to be doing the job. Given there is still well over a year to the election, there is a case for arguing the Democrats decide JB is becoming too damaged when it comes to 2024.
If that is the case, there are two options. Persuade him to step down soon and let Harris have 12 months as President in the hope she can establish some gravitas and win 2024. That is a tall bet.
The other is to look at some of the other, mainly Governors establishing their credentials. Newsom, Whitmer and Pritzker spring to mind. Of the three, I would be putting money on Whitmer for the 2024 nomination - she is female (ties into Roe v Wade), comes from a swing state and does not come from an ultra-liberal state which the other two do and which is likely to put off swing voters.
As for the 2017 Hunter Biden text to Henry Zhao of Harvest Fund Management, here it is:
""I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,
And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction," he continued. "I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father."
It feels like Hunter Biden is absolutely trading on his father's name. There is zero evidence his father has done anything Lwrong. Also, this is the smallest of smallest fry. Kuchner got two billion dollars from the Saudis after being in the White House!
If Biden had been VP or POTUS at the time those texts were sent he would have been guilty.
But in 2017 he was just an ex-VP and failed presidential candidate
Well not if it was all Hunter.
I’m taking the texts at face value - no reason not to. But obviously if it was all Hunter than Biden isn’t responsible.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Could there be some Tory-schism fatigue as well? Referendum Party > UKIP > Reform?
And that's only the ones I'm recollecting right now.
Reform is an obscure fringe party which the large bulk of the electorate will identify as being (a) more right wing than the Tories, (b) anti-EU and (c) something to do with Farage, whether they know he used to lead it or think he still does.
Regardless, there's no particular reason to suppose that it will do any better than the 2% of the popular vote that the Brexit Party picked up last time. Certainly, it's less established, less credible and lower profile than the Greens, who polled a bit less than 3% in 2019.
Most of the voters who are claiming to back Reform are liable either not to turn out or to go back to the Tories come the election.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
In part as it distinguishes them from their predecessors, plenty of swing voters now back a Starmer led Labour Party who would never have voted for the Corbyn or even Ed Miliband or Brown led Labour Party. It is not as big an effect as Blair led New Labour (which was polling over 60% in a few mid 1990s polls) but it is there
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
This won't change your view in any way, but it is worth saying the following.
The situation with high housing costs is remarkably similar in many western countries. There are areas where demand is high reflected in high land values and other areas where demand is low reflected in low land values. High house prices in areas of high demand are largely a consequence of demand plus historically cheap money for the last 2 decades. (although build cost inflation means that they are no longer that high, in objective terms).
It is just fundamentally wrong to blame this situation on 'planning' and misguided to believe it will be solved by allowing everyone to build anywhere by 'removing planning obstacles'. The cost of the latter approach would be unthinkably high, turning the countryside around major urban areas in to inefficient, unplanned sprawl with little or no supporting infrastructure. It is hard to see what, if any, benefits would accrue, other than to educate people why a planning system is needed.
Look at Japan. Look at Tokyo.
Same low rates. Lower actually.
Same population density. Higher actually.
Same growing population in cities.
Different planning system.
Result?
We have faced rampant price rises. They have stable prices.
We face shrinking houses in new builds. Their new builds are better quality and bigger floor space than older stock.
Name one way our system is doing a better job than Japan's.
Using Japan as an example to follow is really dumb. Their land usage pattern is entirely different to ours and in ways you would certainly not be interested in following.
In England, agricultural land accounts for 63% of our land. In Japan it is just 11% - Japan imports 60% of its food. In England, forests, lakes and grassland (moors etc) account for 20% of our land. In Japan it is over 70%. In England residential land, including gardens accounts for 6.1% of land usage. In Japan it is just over half that at 3.2%
So they actually have far less of their land under residential development than in England and 3 times as much left to nature. The difference of course being nothing to do with planning but the fact they have a different cultural tradition when it comes to living on top of each other.
A few basic calculations shows that in terms of residential land, population density in Japan is around 104 people per hectare whilst in the UK it is around 86 people per hectare. This is just for resdential land.
If Japan teaches us anything useful it is that they have dealt with their increasing population by building up, not out.
Yes, because they have zoning. Which is what I've argued for.
They don't have an oligopoly of house developers who can work a planning system where more than a quarter of residential planning applications are rejected. They have residential zones and building regs and what you do with your own land is up to you.
So yes, if building up is more productive, do that.
What's the objection to that?
They're even more densely populated in their residential areas than us, yet it works. Without concreting over the entire country.
Zoning has bugger all to do with that. The biggest factor has been their - forced - decision to sacrifice agricultural land for building and rely on imported food.
And the trouble with your zoning plan is that it still wouldn't get rid of most of the planning rules (thankfully). Those don't relate in any way to allowing or preventing developmemt. They are all about making sure the developers do the necessary mitigation for archaeology and environmental factors, services, etc. All the stuff that Thatcher modernised when she reformed planning in the 1980s. None of that goes away under a zoning scheme. As I have said many times before, your one man war on the planning system is based on ignorance.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Could there be some Tory-schism fatigue as well? Referendum Party > UKIP > Reform?
And that's only the ones I'm recollecting right now.
Reform is an obscure fringe party which the large bulk of the electorate will identify as being (a) more right wing than the Tories, (b) anti-EU and (c) something to do with Farage, whether they know he used to lead it or think he still does.
Regardless, there's no particular reason to suppose that it will do any better than the 2% of the popular vote that the Brexit Party picked up last time. Certainly, it's less established, less credible and lower profile than the Greens, who polled a bit less than 3% in 2019.
Most of the voters who are claiming to back Reform are liable either not to turn out or to go back to the Tories come the election.
Indeed. And which they choose and in what proportion (as well as a few who'll go back to Labour, etc.) will probably more than anything else, dictate the scale of the defeat.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Well, we've had idiot Tory MPs saying daft/stupid/offensive things.
So a Labour MP has decided to join in - Andrew Western, MP for Stratford and Urmston - and show his disdain for the principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right of those accused of criminal offences to get legal advice.
Perhaps his party leader could give him a few lessons on the basics of the criminal justice system.
While I basically agree with your point, example cited are public record. And thus kosher as a political criticism.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
It's not a political criticism. It's a criticism of a lawyer doing his work. It is as stupid, unjustified and dangerous as Braverman attacking lawyers who work for those claiming asylum or Boris attacking lefty lawyers.
Everyone - including corporate bodies - is entitled to legal advice. Both corporate and humans have human rights. Both can be charged with criminal offences. Both benefit from the presumption of innocence and both are entitled to seek legal advice, whether for criminal or civil litigation.
This MP does not seem to understand this. Or he does but cynically seeks to associate a lawyer with his client - the sort of nonsense which when Tory MPs do it is rightly criticised.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Could there be some Tory-schism fatigue as well? Referendum Party > UKIP > Reform?
And that's only the ones I'm recollecting right now.
Reform is an obscure fringe party which the large bulk of the electorate will identify as being (a) more right wing than the Tories, (b) anti-EU and (c) something to do with Farage, whether they know he used to lead it or think he still does.
Regardless, there's no particular reason to suppose that it will do any better than the 2% of the popular vote that the Brexit Party picked up last time. Certainly, it's less established, less credible and lower profile than the Greens, who polled a bit less than 3% in 2019.
Most of the voters who are claiming to back Reform are liable either not to turn out or to go back to the Tories come the election.
You're probably correct. And HOW could I forget the Brexit Party?!?
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
In part as it distinguishes them from their predecessors, plenty of swing voters now back a Starmer led Labour Party who would never have voted for the Corbyn or even Ed Miliband or Brown led Labour Party. It is not as big an effect as Blair led New Labour (which was polling over 60% in a few mid 1990s polls) but it is there
OK. Fair enough. So it's to distinguish between support for the current incarnation of Labour rather than Labour per se? In which case it has some utility then. I haven't seen anyone else use the phrase. A bit like @MoonRabbit's use of "Lady Thatcher" it always stands out as a unique phrase of a particular poster. Thanks for explaining.
For those betting on Biden's nomination and / or the 2024 race, take a look at what has happened over the past 96 hours in the US.
The questions around whether Joe Biden took illicit payments are starting to multiply (text of the WhatsApp message is at the end of this e-mail). Maybe more importantly, the story seems to be breaking out of the right-wing press into other news sources. CBS has been interviewing the IRS Whistleblower who claims the case was obstructed and asking for answers. The New York Times - of all places - asked the WH Press Secretary about the allegations at the Friday press conference (“It’s a reasonable question to ask. The president of the United States is involved, as this message seems to suggest, in some sort of a coercive conversation for business dealings by his son. Is that something that, if he wasn’t, then maybe you should tell us?").
It does not look as though this story is going away and, if anything, it seems to be gaining strength, and the Administration's blocking answers do not seem to be doing the job. Given there is still well over a year to the election, there is a case for arguing the Democrats decide JB is becoming too damaged when it comes to 2024.
If that is the case, there are two options. Persuade him to step down soon and let Harris have 12 months as President in the hope she can establish some gravitas and win 2024. That is a tall bet.
The other is to look at some of the other, mainly Governors establishing their credentials. Newsom, Whitmer and Pritzker spring to mind. Of the three, I would be putting money on Whitmer for the 2024 nomination - she is female (ties into Roe v Wade), comes from a swing state and does not come from an ultra-liberal state which the other two do and which is likely to put off swing voters.
As for the 2017 Hunter Biden text to Henry Zhao of Harvest Fund Management, here it is:
""I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight,
And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction," he continued. "I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father."
It feels like Hunter Biden is absolutely trading on his father's name. There is zero evidence his father has done anything Lwrong. Also, this is the smallest of smallest fry. Kuchner got two billion dollars from the Saudis after being in the White House!
If Biden had been VP or POTUS at the time those texts were sent he would have been guilty.
But in 2017 he was just an ex-VP and failed presidential candidate
Well not if it was all Hunter.
I’m taking the texts at face value - no reason not to. But obviously if it was all Hunter than Biden isn’t responsible.
There's MASSIVE reason not to!
I’m not interested in Hunter Biden so don’t spent any time on it. Just responded to the post with my thoughts
They're [the government] in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
I agree in essence. But like sandpit on PT you are skewing the language towards your favoured option.
Public services would need to be 'cut'. Just saying 'rethought' is already finessing and spinning things.
If we want that honest 'grown up' conversation (which we do) it has to feature the unvarnished truth.
“Rethought” is not the same as “cut”
It implies doing less, but doing it better: ie narrower scope but appropriately funded and well executed. “Cut” is just taking a slice off all budgets without thinking about what the government *should* be doing.
The NHS is a classic. The argument is never “what do we want to achieve and how do we do it in the best possible way”. It’s always “the budget is only up 4% not 5%. You’re killing the NHS!”
This is not true. People -- those in the NHS, researchers, think tanks, Dept of Health civil servants, government and more -- are constantly rethinking how to run the NHS, at all levels. (Indeed, one of the problems the NHS faces, I would suggest, is how often the government loves a big re-organisation of the NHS.)
I suggest there is more time and effort spent on rethinking the NHS than there is on most any other publicly-funded endeavour.
Not the key question - what do we want the NHS to do. And not in the public political debate.
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Could there be some Tory-schism fatigue as well? Referendum Party > UKIP > Reform?
And that's only the ones I'm recollecting right now.
Reform is an obscure fringe party which the large bulk of the electorate will identify as being (a) more right wing than the Tories, (b) anti-EU and (c) something to do with Farage, whether they know he used to lead it or think he still does.
Regardless, there's no particular reason to suppose that it will do any better than the 2% of the popular vote that the Brexit Party picked up last time. Certainly, it's less established, less credible and lower profile than the Greens, who polled a bit less than 3% in 2019.
Most of the voters who are claiming to back Reform are liable either not to turn out or to go back to the Tories come the election.
Indeed. And which they choose and in what proportion (as well as a few who'll go back to Labour, etc.) will probably more than anything else, dictate the scale of the defeat.
I continue to cling to the notion that the Conservatives won't poll less than a third of the popular vote, and may well do a little better than that (rationale: Major managed about 31% in 1997, the median age of the electorate has increased since then, the Tory core vote has actually done very well out of the last thirteen years, Starmer does not fill anyone with enthusiasm, and there's every indication that the Labour platform will not offer radical change to its younger supporter base, which is harder to motivate to turn out than the grey vote.) But I'll admit that the mortgage crisis, coming on top of years of disarray and copious evidence of rank incompetence, is a test of my nerve in holding to that prediction.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
In part as it distinguishes them from their predecessors, plenty of swing voters now back a Starmer led Labour Party who would never have voted for the Corbyn or even Ed Miliband or Brown led Labour Party. It is not as big an effect as Blair led New Labour (which was polling over 60% in a few mid 1990s polls) but it is there
OK. Fair enough. So it's to distinguish between support for the current incarnation of Labour rather than Labour per se? In which case it has some utility then. I haven't seen anyone else use the phrase. A bit like @MoonRabbit's use of "Lady Thatcher" it always stands out as a unique phrase of a particular poster. Thanks for explaining.
Purpose of "Starmer Labour" is to keep disaffected, esp. pro-Cobryn supporters and lean-ers alienated from and less inclined to vote for Labour candidates.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Reform's polling is showing wild swings. Are they on 10% (Opinium) or 2% (Ipsos, 3 days earlier)? With such wide disparities I think panel self selection might have come into play so I would tend to place more reliance on Ipsos as the company that doesn't use a panel.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
She single handed destroyed the markets in an act of sabotage, and with her predecessor she trashed the conservative brand 100% and you have the nonsense to suggest Sunak is toxic
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Reform's polling is showing wild swings. Are they on 10% (Opinium) or 2% (Ipsos, 3 days earlier)? With such wide disparities I think panel self selection might have come into play so I would tend to place more reliance on Ipsos as the company that doesn't use a panel.
Indeed, I suspect R&W will confirm the Opinium Reform number to be a big outlier.
Well, we've had idiot Tory MPs saying daft/stupid/offensive things.
So a Labour MP has decided to join in - Andrew Western, MP for Stratford and Urmston - and show his disdain for the principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right of those accused of criminal offences to get legal advice.
Perhaps his party leader could give him a few lessons on the basics of the criminal justice system.
While I basically agree with your point, example cited are public record. And thus kosher as a political criticism.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
It's not a political criticism. It's a criticism of a lawyer doing his work. It is as stupid, unjustified and dangerous as Braverman attacking lawyers who work for those claiming asylum or Boris attacking lefty lawyers.
Everyone - including corporate bodies - is entitled to legal advice. Both corporate and humans have human rights. Both can be charged with criminal offences. Both benefit from the presumption of innocence and both are entitled to seek legal advice, whether for criminal or civil litigation.
This MP does not seem to understand this. Or he does but cynically seeks to associate a lawyer with his client - the sort of nonsense which when Tory MPs do it is rightly criticised.
Any criticism of a political candidate IS political criticism.
Whether legit, or fair, or reasonable, or significant - these are separate questions. Right to seek AND provide legal representation not withstanding.
Same with Tories as will Labour as with ORMLP or whatever.
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Some countries - notably Russia - insisted on reparations, e.g. $300m from Finland, in the form of machinery, rolling stock and ice-breakers (ships), which were fully paid off in the early-50s. Are you suggesting that Russia now gets off scot free?
They're [the government] in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
I agree in essence. But like sandpit on PT you are skewing the language towards your favoured option.
Public services would need to be 'cut'. Just saying 'rethought' is already finessing and spinning things.
If we want that honest 'grown up' conversation (which we do) it has to feature the unvarnished truth.
“Rethought” is not the same as “cut”
It implies doing less, but doing it better: ie narrower scope but appropriately funded and well executed. “Cut” is just taking a slice off all budgets without thinking about what the government *should* be doing.
The NHS is a classic. The argument is never “what do we want to achieve and how do we do it in the best possible way”. It’s always “the budget is only up 4% not 5%. You’re killing the NHS!”
This is not true. People -- those in the NHS, researchers, think tanks, Dept of Health civil servants, government and more -- are constantly rethinking how to run the NHS, at all levels. (Indeed, one of the problems the NHS faces, I would suggest, is how often the government loves a big re-organisation of the NHS.)
I suggest there is more time and effort spent on rethinking the NHS than there is on most any other publicly-funded endeavour.
Not the key question - what do we want the NHS to do. And not in the public political debate.
Almost every healthcare expert for decades has reckoned there should be more focus on primary care. Their motivations vary, to improve mental health, concerns about social conditions, free up resources for specialised treatment and so on. They may want to manage primary care in different ways, but they are agreed on the basic premise: that's where the priority needs to be.
Of course the public debate is almost entirely about hospitals.
@Gabriel_Pogrund 🚨 In 2020 the Russian embassy told the British government the Kremlin “of course” welcomed a peerage for Evgeny Lebedev
It said Boris Johnson’s nominee had strengthened UK-Russia ties
And said he could use Moscow in his title(!)— an unprecedented step
@Gabriel_Pogrund I’ve posted this in light of story breaking tonight. The Queen, it is said, was asked to block Lebedev’s peerage after Boris Johnson ignored repeated warnings he posed a threat to national security.
@HollyLynch5 Boris Johnson’s time in office was characterised by rule breaking. Even knowing that, these revelations are utterly unbelievable about the position he put officials and the security services in. Tuesday 10pm
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
She single handed destroyed the markets in an act of sabotage, and with her predecessor she trashed the conservative brand 100% and you have the nonsense to suggest Sunak is toxic
Can't we agree that they're both pretty dreadful?
Truss had a policy platform which boiled down to finding the Downing Street "Do Not Press This Button" button and pressing it with all her might. She was also pretty peculiar in her public speaking.
Sunak's policies are sensible, realistic, albeit dismal- I do think that to argue against them is to argue against arithmetic. But he really can't sell them to the public. That's a particular problem given the thinness of the gruel he has to offer.
But then, if either of them were any good, would Johnson have had them as senior members of his Cabinet?
Well, we've had idiot Tory MPs saying daft/stupid/offensive things.
So a Labour MP has decided to join in - Andrew Western, MP for Stratford and Urmston - and show his disdain for the principle of innocence until proven guilty and the right of those accused of criminal offences to get legal advice.
Perhaps his party leader could give him a few lessons on the basics of the criminal justice system.
While I basically agree with your point, example cited are public record. And thus kosher as a political criticism.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
It's not a political criticism. It's a criticism of a lawyer doing his work. It is as stupid, unjustified and dangerous as Braverman attacking lawyers who work for those claiming asylum or Boris attacking lefty lawyers.
Everyone - including corporate bodies - is entitled to legal advice. Both corporate and humans have human rights. Both can be charged with criminal offences. Both benefit from the presumption of innocence and both are entitled to seek legal advice, whether for criminal or civil litigation.
This MP does not seem to understand this. Or he does but cynically seeks to associate a lawyer with his client - the sort of nonsense which when Tory MPs do it is rightly criticised.
Any criticism of a political candidate IS political criticism.
Whether legit, or fair, or reasonable, or significant - these are separate questions. Right to seek AND provide legal representation not withstanding.
Same with Tories as will Labour as with ORMLP or whatever.
So when Braverman and co next attack lefty lawyers providing advice to asylum seekers or, say, Starmer, Labour - and this MP in particular - will go, oh yes, that's all perfectly OK, it's just a political criticism and perfectly legitimate and there is absolutely no problem at all......
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
This won't change your view in any way, but it is worth saying the following.
The situation with high housing costs is remarkably similar in many western countries. There are areas where demand is high reflected in high land values and other areas where demand is low reflected in low land values. High house prices in areas of high demand are largely a consequence of demand plus historically cheap money for the last 2 decades. (although build cost inflation means that they are no longer that high, in objective terms).
It is just fundamentally wrong to blame this situation on 'planning' and misguided to believe it will be solved by allowing everyone to build anywhere by 'removing planning obstacles'. The cost of the latter approach would be unthinkably high, turning the countryside around major urban areas in to inefficient, unplanned sprawl with little or no supporting infrastructure. It is hard to see what, if any, benefits would accrue, other than to educate people why a planning system is needed.
Look at Japan. Look at Tokyo.
Same low rates. Lower actually.
Same population density. Higher actually.
Same growing population in cities.
Different planning system.
Result?
We have faced rampant price rises. They have stable prices.
We face shrinking houses in new builds. Their new builds are better quality and bigger floor space than older stock.
Name one way our system is doing a better job than Japan's.
Using Japan as an example to follow is really dumb. Their land usage pattern is entirely different to ours and in ways you would certainly not be interested in following.
In England, agricultural land accounts for 63% of our land. In Japan it is just 11% - Japan imports 60% of its food. In England, forests, lakes and grassland (moors etc) account for 20% of our land. In Japan it is over 70%. In England residential land, including gardens accounts for 6.1% of land usage. In Japan it is just over half that at 3.2%
So they actually have far less of their land under residential development than in England and 3 times as much left to nature. The difference of course being nothing to do with planning but the fact they have a different cultural tradition when it comes to living on top of each other.
A few basic calculations shows that in terms of residential land, population density in Japan is around 104 people per hectare whilst in the UK it is around 86 people per hectare. This is just for resdential land.
If Japan teaches us anything useful it is that they have dealt with their increasing population by building up, not out.
Yes, because they have zoning. Which is what I've argued for.
They don't have an oligopoly of house developers who can work a planning system where more than a quarter of residential planning applications are rejected. They have residential zones and building regs and what you do with your own land is up to you.
So yes, if building up is more productive, do that.
What's the objection to that?
They're even more densely populated in their residential areas than us, yet it works. Without concreting over the entire country.
Zoning has bugger all to do with that. The biggest factor has been their - forced - decision to sacrifice agricultural land for building and rely on imported food.
And the trouble with your zoning plan is that it still wouldn't get rid of most of the planning rules (thankfully). Those don't relate in any way to allowing or preventing developmemt. They are all about making sure the developers do the necessary mitigation for archaeology and environmental factors, services, etc. All the stuff that Thatcher modernised when she reformed planning in the 1980s. None of that goes away under a zoning scheme. As I have said many times before, your one man war on the planning system is based on ignorance.
The ignorance is the way you keep shifting your arguments when you realise you're wrong always to suit your same desired output even though the arguments keep being wrong and changing; from first suggesting that relaxing planning would lead to the countryside being concreted over and that anyone who suggests it knows the value of nothing, to then claiming that planning doesn't stand in the way of developments and falsely claiming that 90% of residential planning applications are approved. When the figure you so proudly were quoting was the figure for applications for conservatories and lofts on existing homes, not the figure for proposed new homes.
At least after being called out on it, you haven't repeated your 90% claim today.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Criminal barristers in England & Wales have to work both sides of the fence so they can all be accused of being both tough and soft on crime.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Sunak gave a real answer, if one you probably don't like. "Yes." Sunak thinks the BoE is doing the right thing.
It's actually one of his better interviews. A low bar admittedly.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
She single handed destroyed the markets in an act of sabotage, and with her predecessor she trashed the conservative brand 100% and you have the nonsense to suggest Sunak is toxic
Can't we agree that they're both pretty dreadful?
Truss had a policy platform which boiled down to finding the Downing Street "Do Not Press This Button" button and pressing it with all her might. She was also pretty peculiar in her public speaking.
Sunak's policies are sensible, realistic, albeit dismal- I do think that to argue against them is to argue against arithmetic. But he really can't sell them to the public. That's a particular problem given the thinness of the gruel he has to offer.
But then, if either of them were any good, would Johnson have had them as senior members of his Cabinet?
Sunak has an impossible hand to play, and at least he is acting responsibly in the present crisis and will pay an electoral price
Sunak also warned about Truss policies in the leadership campaign, and he has been proven correct on that score
I see Sunak more as a technocrat than a politician, and certainly he seems to know the issues but is blind to the politics
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Very happy to waive any reparations for any emergent democratic regime in Russia to set them up for success. If, however, we get more of the same right wing dictatorship, then we shouldn't forgive a penny.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
Very poor interview. Sunak is playing out the fag-end of a sleazy, incompetent, rule breaking and corrupt Tory regime.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Criminal barristers in England & Wales have to work both sides of the fence so they can all be accused of being both tough and soft on crime.
Does being able to balance a ball on your nose help with this?
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Very happy to waive any reparations for any emergent democratic regime in Russia to set them up for success. If, however, we get more of the same right wing dictatorship, then we shouldn't forgive a penny.
You won't know till after the event whether the new regime will or will not be malevolent. Look at Russia's history since the fall of the Soviet Union
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
Very poor interview. Sunak is playing out the fag-end of a sleazy, incompetent, rule breaking and corrupt Tory regime.
The only argument I have there is "fag end". Sadly, there's 18 more months of this before they are put out of our misery.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Criminal barristers in England & Wales have to work both sides of the fence so they can all be accused of being both tough and soft on crime.
Does being able to balance a ball on your nose help with this?
In the context of being an employment lawyer who acts for employers and employees, yes, yes it does. Helps justify my hourly rate.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Is forgotten all about that! We’ve crammed a lot into 12-months. Brilliant.
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Very happy to waive any reparations for any emergent democratic regime in Russia to set them up for success. If, however, we get more of the same right wing dictatorship, then we shouldn't forgive a penny.
You won't know till after the event whether the new regime will or will not be malevolent. Look at Russia's history since the fall of the Soviet Union
I think given the last 500 years of Russian history its safe to assume the regime will be malevolent.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
She single handed destroyed the markets in an act of sabotage, and with her predecessor she trashed the conservative brand 100% and you have the nonsense to suggest Sunak is toxic
Can't we agree that they're both pretty dreadful?
Truss had a policy platform which boiled down to finding the Downing Street "Do Not Press This Button" button and pressing it with all her might. She was also pretty peculiar in her public speaking.
Sunak's policies are sensible, realistic, albeit dismal- I do think that to argue against them is to argue against arithmetic. But he really can't sell them to the public. That's a particular problem given the thinness of the gruel he has to offer.
But then, if either of them were any good, would Johnson have had them as senior members of his Cabinet?
Sunak could be a Bill Clinton level communicator and he couldn't sell policies to the public. After ten years in office, the public stop listening. Especially during a time of economic hardship. And even more after the venality of Boris and the incompetence of Truss, under the same party brand.
But for all their flaws, there have been two major issues of our time: repulsing COVID and the War in Ukraine. On the first, the Tories oversaw a fantastic vaccine roll-out. On the second, they have been imperilous in leading the united Western stand against Ukraine. The latter at political cost due to the inflationary effects. I will always think positively of them because of those two.
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Very happy to waive any reparations for any emergent democratic regime in Russia to set them up for success. If, however, we get more of the same right wing dictatorship, then we shouldn't forgive a penny.
You won't know till after the event whether the new regime will or will not be malevolent. Look at Russia's history since the fall of the Soviet Union
You could extend that back to the Tsars. They almost all turned out to be malevolent. Although it wasn't always obvious instantly. Honourable exceptions for Alexander II. And Gorbachev. About the only two who seemed to factor the welfare of the people into their decision making.
Edit. @cookie said it earlier, better and more succinctly. As ever.
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Very happy to waive any reparations for any emergent democratic regime in Russia to set them up for success. If, however, we get more of the same right wing dictatorship, then we shouldn't forgive a penny.
You won't know till after the event whether the new regime will or will not be malevolent. Look at Russia's history since the fall of the Soviet Union
You could extend that back to the Tsars. They almost all turned out to be malevolent. Although it wasn't always obvious instantly. Honourable exceptions for Alexander II. And Gorbachev. About the only two who seemed to factor the welfare of the people into their decision making.
Because they have all been autocrats. If a democracy is started there, it may or may not last. But free and fair elections should be the condition for reparations relief.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
She single handed destroyed the markets in an act of sabotage, and with her predecessor she trashed the conservative brand 100% and you have the nonsense to suggest Sunak is toxic
Can't we agree that they're both pretty dreadful?
Truss had a policy platform which boiled down to finding the Downing Street "Do Not Press This Button" button and pressing it with all her might. She was also pretty peculiar in her public speaking.
Sunak's policies are sensible, realistic, albeit dismal- I do think that to argue against them is to argue against arithmetic. But he really can't sell them to the public. That's a particular problem given the thinness of the gruel he has to offer.
But then, if either of them were any good, would Johnson have had them as senior members of his Cabinet?
My comments were related to presentation, not politics. He can't interview or speak publicly - that is a serious issue. Especially when, as you point out, he's selling a s**t sandwich.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Criminal barristers in England & Wales have to work both sides of the fence so they can all be accused of being both tough and soft on crime.
How about the guy I posted about earlier, namely Edmund James, QC MP (Liberal) described by The Spectator as (according to wiki) a leader in all actions for seduction, breach of promise of marriage, assault, and false imprisonment, and in all cases that involved the reputation of an actress or a horse.
But where those civil, not criminal cases?
Note that unfortunately Edmund James was shortly both ex-QC (first ever disbarred) and ex-MP. However, believe that he might have won MY vote, based on a case where he was counsel for the defense for alleged murderer - and got him off on a technicality.
Anderson, a slave in Missouri, in 1660 escaped, stabbed and killed a man trying to recapture him, eluded other slave-catchers, and crossed the Detroit River into Canada West (Ontario). Request for extradition ultimately (also timely) rejected in 1861 due to faulty wording of warrant.
Most significant, albeit unexpected, result of James's advocacy in Anderson's case, was passage of Habeas Corpus Act 1862 by UK parliament denying British courts the right to issue writs of habeas corpus for British colonies or dominions with their own competent courts - a key step on the road from Empire to Commonwealth.
I'm not convinced about the idea of sequestering Russian assets in the west. Legally it is obviously fraught with difficulty for one. Secondly though it is removing an incentive for Russia to make peace with the west on our terms. If they aren't getting their assets back anyway why bother?
I think on balance you are right. Look at what happened after WW1 for a perfect example of how not to act as victors.
There is however the little question of reparations for the damage inflicted by the unprovoked war they initiated
As there was in WW2. And learning the lessons of WW1 we waived a great deal of that under the London Agreement of 1953.
Very happy to waive any reparations for any emergent democratic regime in Russia to set them up for success. If, however, we get more of the same right wing dictatorship, then we shouldn't forgive a penny.
You won't know till after the event whether the new regime will or will not be malevolent. Look at Russia's history since the fall of the Soviet Union
You could extend that back to the Tsars. They almost all turned out to be malevolent. Although it wasn't always obvious instantly. Honourable exceptions for Alexander II. And Gorbachev. About the only two who seemed to factor the welfare of the people into their decision making.
Because they have all been autocrats. If a democracy is started there, it may or may not last. But free and fair elections should be the condition for reparations relief.
And what if a free and fair election results in an autocrat? Or something so unstable that it leads to one? Russia has had them before. They tend not to permit a second one within living memory.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Reform's polling is showing wild swings. Are they on 10% (Opinium) or 2% (Ipsos, 3 days earlier)? With such wide disparities I think panel self selection might have come into play so I would tend to place more reliance on Ipsos as the company that doesn't use a panel.
I don't know anyone who's even heard of Reform. I can't believe much more than 10% of the electorate have heard of them, let alone say they will vote for them. I don't give them a moment's thought and I'm very switched on. Any poll with them above about 4% must be suspect in my view. Unless Farage re-emerges from hiding, in which case all bets are off.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
In part as it distinguishes them from their predecessors, plenty of swing voters now back a Starmer led Labour Party who would never have voted for the Corbyn or even Ed Miliband or Brown led Labour Party. It is not as big an effect as Blair led New Labour (which was polling over 60% in a few mid 1990s polls) but it is there
OK. Fair enough. So it's to distinguish between support for the current incarnation of Labour rather than Labour per se? In which case it has some utility then. I haven't seen anyone else use the phrase. A bit like @MoonRabbit's use of "Lady Thatcher" it always stands out as a unique phrase of a particular poster. Thanks for explaining.
Purpose of "Starmer Labour" is to keep disaffected, esp. pro-Cobryn supporters and lean-ers alienated from and less inclined to vote for Labour candidates.
That is, the purpose of the phrase "Starmer Labour" etc., etc.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
It's like saying "Donkeys Beer Korma JIMMY SAVILE PAEDOPHILE!!!! Corbyn Labour" five times over again. Like the key shortcut for a phrase on the CP/M operating system wordprocessor on Amstrad PCWs.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Fact is. The Tories have come up with a halfway acceptably competent leader once in the last eight goes.* At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have fewer tries at it.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
I've been surprised it's taken so long for Reform to get to 10% in an opinion poll. I think it's because their leader is not well known, and everyone expects it to be Farage.
Reform's polling is showing wild swings. Are they on 10% (Opinium) or 2% (Ipsos, 3 days earlier)? With such wide disparities I think panel self selection might have come into play so I would tend to place more reliance on Ipsos as the company that doesn't use a panel.
I don't know anyone who's even heard of Reform. I can't believe much more than 10% of the electorate have heard of them, let alone say they will vote for them. I don't give them a moment's thought and I'm very switched on. Any poll with them above about 4% must be suspect in my view. Unless Farage re-emerges from hiding, in which case all bets are off.
Real elections suggest Refuk is on closer to 2% than 10%. I think Ref is what disgruntled right wingers reach for when they can’t quite admit they’ll actually vote conservative or just not vote at all.
Details of last week's Yougov out and have more 2019 Tory voters now going RefUK than Labour after Boris leaves the Commons and the Partygate report vote.
And that's the vice Sunak is caught in. As opposed to the vices that got Johnson caught out.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
Major did lose votes to his right too in 1997 to Goldsmith's Referendum Party and UKIP as well as New Labour but Sunak is now losing more to on his right (to RefUK) than Major did while also still leaking to Labour
I'm curious why you often use the term "Starmer Labour" rather than simply Labour? It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit. Not that I have any right to stop you. Just a bit nosy really.
It's like saying "Donkeys Beer Korma JIMMY SAVILE PAEDOPHILE!!!! Corbyn Labour" five times over again. Like the key shortcut for a phrase on the CP/M operating system wordprocessor on Amstrad PCWs.
I'd forgotten about the donkeys. And there's the illegal ice creams. Starmer is clearly some kind of knotted-handkerchief Carry On villain.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Fact is. The Tories have come up with a halfway acceptably competent leader once in the last eight goes.* At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have had fewer tries at it.
May we know which one are you counting as the halfway competent one?
J @Beyond_Topline All the evidence on public opinion on Brexit points towards closer integration in the medium term IMO.
After another 5 years of demographic churn, it feels very likely that the 2028/9 Labour manifesto will include some kind of step change in the relationship.
I suspect Cons will acquiesce at that point too, because by the 2030s a huge proportion of Brexit voters will no longer be with us, and they certainly aren't being replaced by Remainers changing their minds and becoming Brexiteers. This is one issue that feels very cohort based.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Fact is. The Tories have come up with a halfway acceptably competent leader once in the last eight goes.* At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have had fewer tries at it.
May we know which one are you counting as the halfway competent one?
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
She single handed destroyed the markets in an act of sabotage, and with her predecessor she trashed the conservative brand 100% and you have the nonsense to suggest Sunak is toxic
Can't we agree that they're both pretty dreadful?
Truss had a policy platform which boiled down to finding the Downing Street "Do Not Press This Button" button and pressing it with all her might. She was also pretty peculiar in her public speaking.
Sunak's policies are sensible, realistic, albeit dismal- I do think that to argue against them is to argue against arithmetic. But he really can't sell them to the public. That's a particular problem given the thinness of the gruel he has to offer.
But then, if either of them were any good, would Johnson have had them as senior members of his Cabinet?
My comments were related to presentation, not politics. He can't interview or speak publicly - that is a serious issue. Especially when, as you point out, he's selling a s**t sandwich.
Too much too soon- a decade ago, he wasn't even a candidate, so he's not really had time to get good, and you can't really do it once you're in the spotlight. (Leaders of the opposition can to a degree, but PMs are too exposed too much of the time.)
Shame really. Had his rise not been so meteoric, he'd have had a decent shot at LotO in 2028ish and PM in 2033, and he could have Been His Own Man. Instead, he's become PM now and nobody can take that away from him... but he's got a lousy hand and insufficent skills to play it as well as it can be played.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Criminal barristers in England & Wales have to work both sides of the fence so they can all be accused of being both tough and soft on crime.
How about the guy I posted about earlier, namely Edmund James, QC MP (Liberal) described by The Spectator as (according to wiki) a leader in all actions for seduction, breach of promise of marriage, assault, and false imprisonment, and in all cases that involved the reputation of an actress or a horse.
But where those civil, not criminal cases?
Note that unfortunately Edmund James was shortly both ex-QC (first ever disbarred) and ex-MP. However, believe that he might have won MY vote, based on a case where he was counsel for the defense for alleged murderer - and got him off on a technicality.
Anderson, a slave in Missouri, in 1660 escaped, stabbed and killed a man trying to recapture him, eluded other slave-catchers, and crossed the Detroit River into Canada West (Ontario). Request for extradition ultimately (also timely) rejected in 1861 due to faulty wording of warrant.
Most significant, albeit unexpected, result of James's advocacy in Anderson's case, was passage of Habeas Corpus Act 1862 by UK parliament denying British courts the right to issue writs of habeas corpus for British colonies or dominions with their own competent courts - a key step on the road from Empire to Commonwealth.
You can get a reputation for one or the other, Starmer was appointed DPP for a reason, but as a junior (ie any barrister not a QC/KC) you get what’s given to you at the independent bar. Traditionally barristers are all self-employed and you might get your instructions from either the Crown or the Defence. You can’t afford to be picky.
According to Wiki Edwin (tsk!) James QC’s famous cases included -
-The successful prosecution of poisoner William Palmer in 1856.
-The successful defence of Simon Bernard, who was tried in 1858 for complicity with Felice Orsini in his plot to assassinate Napoleon III of France.
- The Canadian appeal case of the fugitive slave John Anderson.
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Indeed. Fundamentally, the cost of accommodation is a total rip-off - and it's even worse for renters than mortgage payers. Myself, if I was a renter - even living as I do in a modest one-bed flat - rather than owning outright then I'd be paying about as much for housing as all my other basic bills put together, including a healthy food budget as well as energy, TV/broadband and water.
This is why there's been such a mass pile-in into the BTL landlord business by small investors. It was money for old rope for anybody who could get hold of a BTL mortgage on an interest-only basis, and it's still money for old rope for any landlord who owns the rental outright or has a decent equity share. Just set up a little flat, install a renter and improve your own standard of living immensely by extracting a large chunk of their earned income for yourself. It's actually quite surprising that more people haven't done it when you think about it.
Tax rates on rents are high, compared to the untaxed status of enjoying the occupancy of a house you own yourself. Otherwise the world would indeed look like you suggest, and other countries like Switzerland look a lot more like the mass rental scenario.
Tax rates on rents are absurdly low, lower than tax rates on earned income. No NI on income from rents.
Not true, actually. I have a little field inherited from an ancestor and kept for sentimental/environmental reasons, and I get £80 pa for it from the farmer. But I have to pay NI on that. Class 2 or 3. Apparently it counts as a business.
Why doesn’t he just fill your freezer once a year like everyone else in that situation?
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Fact is. The Tories have come up with a halfway acceptably competent leader once in the last eight goes.* At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have had fewer tries at it.
May we know which one are you counting as the halfway competent one?
Cameron. At least for a while. He hauled them back to power. Then to a majority. Personally, I don't rate him, and we are suffering from a lot of his policies, but he leapt the competent bar. Having a policy, selling it to the public, then implementing it is my baseline for competence. Corruption and scandal wasn't great during his time either.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Fact is. The Tories have come up with a halfway acceptably competent leader once in the last eight goes.* At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have fewer tries at it.
Stability, or at least something appearing to approach it - contrasted with instability, from party for whom stability was once both core virtue and key vote-catcher.
Re: lawyers and clients, once worked for local deputy prosecutor who was running to be a judge.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Criminal barristers in England & Wales have to work both sides of the fence so they can all be accused of being both tough and soft on crime.
How about the guy I posted about earlier, namely Edmund James, QC MP (Liberal) described by The Spectator as (according to wiki) a leader in all actions for seduction, breach of promise of marriage, assault, and false imprisonment, and in all cases that involved the reputation of an actress or a horse.
But where those civil, not criminal cases?
Note that unfortunately Edmund James was shortly both ex-QC (first ever disbarred) and ex-MP. However, believe that he might have won MY vote, based on a case where he was counsel for the defense for alleged murderer - and got him off on a technicality.
Anderson, a slave in Missouri, in 1660 escaped, stabbed and killed a man trying to recapture him, eluded other slave-catchers, and crossed the Detroit River into Canada West (Ontario). Request for extradition ultimately (also timely) rejected in 1861 due to faulty wording of warrant.
Most significant, albeit unexpected, result of James's advocacy in Anderson's case, was passage of Habeas Corpus Act 1862 by UK parliament denying British courts the right to issue writs of habeas corpus for British colonies or dominions with their own competent courts - a key step on the road from Empire to Commonwealth.
You can get a reputation for one or the other, Starmer was appointed DPP for a reason, but as a junior (ie any barrister not a QC/KC) you get what’s given to you at the independent bar. Traditionally barristers are all self-employed and you might get your instructions from either the Crown or the Defence. You can’t afford to be picky.
According to Wiki Edwin (tsk!) James QC’s famous cases included -
-The successful prosecution of poisoner William Palmer in 1856.
-The successful defence of Simon Bernard, who was tried in 1858 for complicity with Felice Orsini in his plot to assassinate Napoleon III of France.
- The Canadian appeal case of the fugitive slave John Anderson.
Same as with most professions, aside from the top 10% or so . . . and even for them more than you'd think.
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
No where near Truss
Don't make me laugh. He makes a Truss interview look like Princess Diana visiting landmine victims. She is awkward but struggles through and gives real answers. He's by turns pompous, repetitious, patronising and hostile. Toxic.
Have you forgotten the hilarity of the Truss tour of local radio stations during her brief stint in no 10?
Not at all, I'm taking into account every bit of how butt-arse awful she is at this stuff - he's worse because he actively makes you want to reach for the rotten vegetables even if you liked him at the beginning.
Fact is. The Tories have come up with a halfway acceptably competent leader once in the last eight goes.* At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have had fewer tries at it.
May we know which one are you counting as the halfway competent one?
Cameron. At least for a while. He hauled them back to power. Then to a majority. Personally, I don't rate him, and we are suffering from a lot of his policies, but he leapt the competent bar. Having a policy, selling it to the public, then implementing it is my baseline for competence. Corruption and scandal wasn't great during his time either.
By the same measure I'd count Kinnock as competent, too. He had a policy. Reform the Labour Party. He sold it to the Party, and, to an extent, the public. And implemented it so successfully that Smith and then Blair weren't really behind in the polls for a decade plus for any length of time. It's not necessarily about electoral success. A Johnson could achieve the first two easily. He just had no idea, nor interest in how to implement any of his (political) fantasies.
"Below is my column in the Messenger on the curious role of Hunter Biden as the “designated defendant” of the Biden family. Throughout the years of influence peddling and millions in transfers to various Biden associates and family members, Hunter remained the frontman. He is now expected to face accountability for these dealings. He even complained to his daughter in 2019 that he was being sued. Telling her that “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop [Joe], I won’t make you give me half your salary.” While he will get off light, he will be expected to take 100 percent of any accountability as his father repeatedly says how “proud” he is of his son."
(The Bidens remind me -- a bit -- of the old Daley machine. The original Daley saw nothing wrong with family and friends making money from the city, but might sacrifice someone, if necessary.
I would be interested to learn how Hunter got so screwed up -- but not enough to do any serious research on the subject.)
The Tories won’t do themselves any favours overruling independent pay bodies on public sector pay.
We are just likely to see more and more strikes and disruption and not just from the likes of the RMT who are politically motivated.
They're in a complete bind. They'll trot out the wage-price spiral excuse to justify bearing down on public sector pay, but the plain fact is that they're struggling to find politically acceptable cuts to fund extra spending in this area, borrowing is enormous and becoming ever more expensive, and so they're left with either digging their heels in and offering workers peanuts, or raising taxes on their core supporters to pay for more generous rises. There's no violin small enough.
The reality we are reaching the end game for the Blairite/Thatcher-lite model
It used to be chunky public spending and low taxes with the difference funded by clever balance sheet tricks (PFI/securitisation) or straight up borrowing. Wages were kept down by relaxed views on immigration
Cost of borrowing is going up and the markets are twitchy after all that QE
Asset price bubbles have driven a reasonable standard of living beyond the reach of many
Effectively unlimited immigration has resulted in underinvestment in business (low wages partly due to immigration and partly due to tax credits) drove down returns (cost saving) on investment and increased the strain on public services (governments didn’t invest in capacity).
The electorate has been trained to believe the government will always bail them out
We need a grown up conversation. Either taxes have to go up massively or public services need to be completely rethought.
But neither politicians or the electorate are ready to have that conversation.
While much of this is true, it is also the case that other countries have had similar situations to us, and have managed to avoid excessively expensive housing or stagnant business investment.
They therefore cannot be the whole story.
It's almost as if our planning system might be different to theirs.
The largest cost in household budgets is Housing. Not food, not gas, not electricity or anything else it is housing.
A very large proportion of the cost of housing is the cost of land.
And the cost of land with planning permission is inflated over land without.
Resolve one and others follow.
Indeed. Fundamentally, the cost of accommodation is a total rip-off - and it's even worse for renters than mortgage payers. Myself, if I was a renter - even living as I do in a modest one-bed flat - rather than owning outright then I'd be paying about as much for housing as all my other basic bills put together, including a healthy food budget as well as energy, TV/broadband and water.
This is why there's been such a mass pile-in into the BTL landlord business by small investors. It was money for old rope for anybody who could get hold of a BTL mortgage on an interest-only basis, and it's still money for old rope for any landlord who owns the rental outright or has a decent equity share. Just set up a little flat, install a renter and improve your own standard of living immensely by extracting a large chunk of their earned income for yourself. It's actually quite surprising that more people haven't done it when you think about it.
Tax rates on rents are high, compared to the untaxed status of enjoying the occupancy of a house you own yourself. Otherwise the world would indeed look like you suggest, and other countries like Switzerland look a lot more like the mass rental scenario.
Tax rates on rents are absurdly low, lower than tax rates on earned income. No NI on income from rents.
Not true, actually. I have a little field inherited from an ancestor and kept for sentimental/environmental reasons, and I get £80 pa for it from the farmer. But I have to pay NI on that. Class 2 or 3. Apparently it counts as a business.
Why doesn’t he just fill your freezer once a year like everyone else in that situation?
Doesn't produce the right sort of stuff ...
If it's bigger than a tenth of an acre it should be asking 80 per week or per month I would have thought.
Comments
There is no list.
I'm a single male and it took fewer than two months from registration to keys, including Christmas and New Year.
If you are eligible for a property you can bid. If you put in the first bid you get the property. How long you've been waiting is irrelevant.
There were only 2 in the County I was eligible for. I got one.
There is no "waiting list".
It implies doing less, but doing it better: ie narrower scope but appropriately funded and well executed. “Cut” is just taking a slice off all budgets without thinking about what the government *should* be doing.
The NHS is a classic. The argument is never “what do we want to achieve and how do we do it in the best possible way”. It’s always “the budget is only up 4% not 5%. You’re killing the NHS!”
Incidentally the Japanese are not averse to a bit of concrete -- the construction state is a nice cosy relationship between the building industry, politicians and banking which will happily build less-than-obviously necessary bridges, dams, etc in scenic areas.
Believe that lawyers turned politicos have been criticized on account of their clients since days of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Or rather long before . . .
There are 36 flats in this building. Just found out 5 of them are currently empty.
So there isn't a proper shortage of Housing Association properties up here.
Incidentally. They aren't cheap.
But. I have security of tenure. A warden for half the day. And repairs tend to be same day if urgent, same week for everything else.
And that's only the ones I'm recollecting right now.
Whatever he does from here, whatever moves he makes to the centre or to the right are going to lose him votes from the other side of what's left of his coalition. Backing Bozza and sacking him were both vote losers. So he tried to avoid doing either.
And that feeds into the other problem- the risk that he just sits there, like a terrified rabbit, for the next year and a half. The latter days of Major were bad, but I don't recall them being this bad.
I suggest there is more time and effort spent on rethinking the NHS than there is on most any other publicly-funded endeavour.
This all sounds like a total disaster to me.
Not spend decades planning what was needed decades ago, but is totally obsolete decades later as the facts have changed so much all your plans were based on faulty assumptions.
The latter is a proven disaster today.
Still a legitimate hit if hardly silver bullet. And certainly is noteworthy, electorally-speaking, IF a candidate's client list is heavily skewed in some direction, or another.
https://order-order.com/2023/06/25/prime-minister-praises-bank-of-england-and-baileys-track-record-confirms-total-support/
Can anyone honestly tell me they can bear more than 20 seconds of the groundlessly patronising little turd without wanting to hurl things at the screen? He is disastrous.
It's a style thing of yours which jars with me a bit.
Not that I have any right to stop you.
Just a bit nosy really.
Regardless, there's no particular reason to suppose that it will do any better than the 2% of the popular vote that the Brexit Party picked up last time. Certainly, it's less established, less credible and lower profile than the Greens, who polled a bit less than 3% in 2019.
Most of the voters who are claiming to back Reform are liable either not to turn out or to go back to the Tories come the election.
And the trouble with your zoning plan is that it still wouldn't get rid of most of the planning rules (thankfully). Those don't relate in any way to allowing or preventing developmemt. They are all about making sure the developers do the necessary mitigation for archaeology and environmental factors, services, etc. All the stuff that Thatcher modernised when she reformed planning in the 1980s. None of that goes away under a zoning scheme. As I have said many times before, your one man war on the planning system is based on ignorance.
And which they choose and in what proportion (as well as a few who'll go back to Labour, etc.) will probably more than anything else, dictate the scale of the defeat.
He'd been a tough, generally successful prosecutor versus range of alleged/convicted malefactors. Including cases of domestic violence.
This record, backed up by wide variety of impressive testimonials & endorsements, proved to be highly persuasive with voters across the political spectrum, from wack to woke and back.
Everyone - including corporate bodies - is entitled to legal advice. Both corporate and humans have human rights. Both can be charged with criminal offences. Both benefit from the presumption of innocence and both are entitled to seek legal advice, whether for criminal or civil litigation.
This MP does not seem to understand this. Or he does but cynically seeks to associate a lawyer with his client - the sort of nonsense which when Tory MPs do it is rightly criticised.
In which case it has some utility then. I haven't seen anyone else use the phrase. A bit like @MoonRabbit's use of "Lady Thatcher" it always stands out as a unique phrase of a particular poster.
Thanks for explaining.
Whether legit, or fair, or reasonable, or significant - these are separate questions. Right to seek AND provide legal representation not withstanding.
Same with Tories as will Labour as with ORMLP or whatever.
Are you suggesting that Russia now gets off scot free?
Of course the public debate is almost entirely about hospitals.
🚨 In 2020 the Russian embassy told the British government the Kremlin “of course” welcomed a peerage for Evgeny Lebedev
It said Boris Johnson’s nominee had strengthened UK-Russia ties
And said he could use Moscow in his title(!)— an unprecedented step
@Gabriel_Pogrund
I’ve posted this in light of story breaking tonight. The Queen, it is said, was asked to block Lebedev’s peerage after Boris Johnson ignored repeated warnings he posed a threat to national security.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1673066802195120129
Boris Johnson’s time in office was characterised by rule breaking. Even knowing that, these revelations are utterly unbelievable about the position he put officials and the security services in. Tuesday 10pm
https://twitter.com/HollyLynch5/status/1673067601998540801
Truss had a policy platform which boiled down to finding the Downing Street "Do Not Press This Button" button and pressing it with all her might. She was also pretty peculiar in her public speaking.
Sunak's policies are sensible, realistic, albeit dismal- I do think that to argue against them is to argue against arithmetic. But he really can't sell them to the public. That's a particular problem given the thinness of the gruel he has to offer.
But then, if either of them were any good, would Johnson have had them as senior members of his Cabinet?
At least after being called out on it, you haven't repeated your 90% claim today.
It's actually one of his better interviews. A low bar admittedly.
Sunak also warned about Truss policies in the leadership campaign, and he has been proven correct on that score
I see Sunak more as a technocrat than a politician, and certainly he seems to know the issues but is blind to the politics
The things we keep secret, eh?
Sadly, there's 18 more months of this before they are put out of our misery.
But for all their flaws, there have been two major issues of our time: repulsing COVID and the War in Ukraine. On the first, the Tories oversaw a fantastic vaccine roll-out. On the second, they have been imperilous in leading the united Western stand against Ukraine. The latter at political cost due to the inflationary effects. I will always think positively of them because of those two.
They almost all turned out to be malevolent. Although it wasn't always obvious instantly.
Honourable exceptions for Alexander II. And Gorbachev.
About the only two who seemed to factor the welfare of the people into their decision making.
Edit. @cookie said it earlier, better and more succinctly. As ever.
But where those civil, not criminal cases?
Note that unfortunately Edmund James was shortly both ex-QC (first ever disbarred) and ex-MP. However, believe that he might have won MY vote, based on a case where he was counsel for the defense for alleged murderer - and got him off on a technicality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_case_of_John_Anderson
Anderson, a slave in Missouri, in 1660 escaped, stabbed and killed a man trying to recapture him, eluded other slave-catchers, and crossed the Detroit River into Canada West (Ontario). Request for extradition ultimately (also timely) rejected in 1861 due to faulty wording of warrant.
Most significant, albeit unexpected, result of James's advocacy in Anderson's case, was passage of Habeas Corpus Act 1862 by UK parliament denying British courts the right to issue writs of habeas corpus for British colonies or dominions with their own competent courts - a key step on the road from Empire to Commonwealth.
Russia has had them before. They tend not to permit a second one within living memory.
One of the great meteorological phenomena: a dry cold front. Wind, rapid drop in temperature and humidity, but no rain.
The air is currently coursing through our house like super-charged air conditioning.
At what point do they ask themselves that their system isn't working?
*Whilst appreciating Labour isn't that much better. But at least they have fewer tries at it.
@Beyond_Topline
All the evidence on public opinion on Brexit points towards closer integration in the medium term IMO.
After another 5 years of demographic churn, it feels very likely that the 2028/9 Labour manifesto will include some kind of step change in the relationship.
I suspect Cons will acquiesce at that point too, because by the 2030s a huge proportion of Brexit voters will no longer be with us, and they certainly aren't being replaced by Remainers changing their minds and becoming Brexiteers. This is one issue that feels very cohort based.
But, yes. It's cooled down a bit.
Shame really. Had his rise not been so meteoric, he'd have had a decent shot at LotO in 2028ish and PM in 2033, and he could have Been His Own Man. Instead, he's become PM now and nobody can take that away from him... but he's got a lousy hand and insufficent skills to play it as well as it can be played.
According to Wiki Edwin (tsk!) James QC’s famous cases included -
-The successful prosecution of poisoner William Palmer in 1856.
-The successful defence of Simon Bernard, who was tried in 1858 for complicity with Felice Orsini in his plot to assassinate Napoleon III of France.
- The Canadian appeal case of the fugitive slave John Anderson.
The all time greatest was 30th June 1995. Sea breeze front across the entire midlands and South, 33C to 18C in less than an hour.
Personally, I don't rate him, and we are suffering from a lot of his policies, but he leapt the competent bar.
Having a policy, selling it to the public, then implementing it is my baseline for competence.
Corruption and scandal wasn't great during his time either.
It's not necessarily about electoral success.
A Johnson could achieve the first two easily. He just had no idea, nor interest in how to implement any of his (political) fantasies.
"Below is my column in the Messenger on the curious role of Hunter Biden as the “designated defendant” of the Biden family. Throughout the years of influence peddling and millions in transfers to various Biden associates and family members, Hunter remained the frontman. He is now expected to face accountability for these dealings. He even complained to his daughter in 2019 that he was being sued. Telling her that “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop [Joe], I won’t make you give me half your salary.” While he will get off light, he will be expected to take 100 percent of any accountability as his father repeatedly says how “proud” he is of his son."
(The Bidens remind me -- a bit -- of the old Daley machine. The original Daley saw nothing wrong with family and friends making money from the city, but might sacrifice someone, if necessary.
I would be interested to learn how Hunter got so screwed up -- but not enough to do any serious research on the subject.)