Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not? you must think to some extent about history and the law, by virtue of being on here, and if you have thought about them and concluded that they can be practised without the exercise of logical thinking you are not going to win any awards for general intellectual prowess.
Well maybe you have proved the point as you have made an illogical assumption. I said Engineers, Physics and Mathematics require logical thinking. I did not say (all or any) Historians and Lawyers lack logical thinking as can be proved by the posts from many on here. However you would be correct in assuming that I believe given two samples of both I would be inclined to assume the group of scientist would be more logical/intelligent, although I would also assume that sample would have a greater selection of oddballs in them as well (as per @HYUFD assumption which I do agree with).
Anyway after that ridiculous generalisation by me the other obvious flaw in your reply was how your reply started with 'Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not?' by the fact that you actually replied.
You are really bad at this, aren't you? The posts went
Someone: Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
You: Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
That can only mean that you think PPE/law/history do nt require logical thinking. There is no other way of interpreting it. It means that, or it is pointless.
So we have established that logical parsing of your own output is beyond you.
Maybe you should debate with someone who hasn't done a degree in Logic?
Hahaha.
So, explain how your post does not imply that PPE/law/history do not require logical thinking.
Got to go. House clearance to sort. Come back to me in a few hours.
Hahaha.
Have you got a screwloose or something? I have just arrived at my deceased father's house waiting for a house clearance quote. When I said I would get back to you I meant it. Some of us have other things to do than post here. Honestly.
Sorry for your loss.
One tip if the quote is 'you pay them' - speak to a general auction house as they'll often clear for free and then give you the proceeds of the sale of stuff...
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
“Refute” is a bugbear of mine. It isn’t a synonym of “deny”.
Though curiously 'rebut', which can be so used, has much the same etymological roots, except via French, rather than directly from Latin.
I use deny to mean deny, refute in its correct sense of destroying an argument, and rebut to mean 'deny with reasons'. FWIW.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
I used to drive my PhD supervisor mad when discussing potential algorithms in which I would informally state "well I think that would be exponentially harder".....as short hand for its going to be bloody computationally expensive so not an option...when of course there is Big O notation when talking about the cost of an algorithm. So many pencils leads snapped by force of being pressed into the pad after being triggered by my misuse of exponentially.
Oh that's another one. 'Increasing exponentially' has a very specific meaning; it doesn't mean 'increasing a lot'. I'm not sure 'exponentially harder' means anything. I think the vaguely-mathematical term you are after here is 'orders of magnitude harder'.
As I said, the conversation given its academic nature should have been framed in terms of what cost in Big O, but this was my "tick" when brain storming ideas. In the end, I used to do semi-deliberately where I would say exxp, then use something more accurate, just to see if it got a reaction.
As we saw during COVID, people struggled with the idea of exponential growth.....
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
'Parse' is one I've recently noticed. It originally had a very technical meaning concerning grammatical analysis, but I've seen it increasing used as a mere synonym of 'understand / make sense of'. I wonder if people have heard about computers 'parsing' sentences (again a specifically technical process) and misconstrued what actually being said.
Can I also add 'quantum' to the list of misused terms? And also 'quantum leap'?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
'Parse' is one I've recently noticed. It originally had a very technical meaning concerning grammatical analysis, but I've seen it increasing used as a mere synonym of 'understand / make sense of'. I wonder if people have heard about computers 'parsing' sentences (again a specifically technical process) and misconstrued what actually being said.
I think this has leaked into usage from the US, where legalese slips more into to regular speech than here - though in my experience it goes a little further than just 'understand'; more 'I've analysed this and extracted its true meaning and implication(s)'. It is quite a useful word in that sense, though obviously not if we don't have a shared understanding of the meaning.
Occasionally fashions for words come from an identifiable source, for example 'swingeing' in the early 2010s around cuts/austerity.
My least favourite recent word-meme has been the use of '[x party] do not recognise this', a weaselly non-denial denial.
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
'Parse' is one I've recently noticed. It originally had a very technical meaning concerning grammatical analysis, but I've seen it increasing used as a mere synonym of 'understand / make sense of'. I wonder if people have heard about computers 'parsing' sentences (again a specifically technical process) and misconstrued what actually being said.
I think this has leaked into usage from the US, where legalese slips more into to regular speech than here - though in my experience it goes a little further than just 'understand'; more 'I've analysed this and extracted its true meaning and implication(s)'. It is quite a useful word in that sense, though obviously not if we don't have a shared understanding of the meaning.
Occasionally fashions for words come from an identifiable source, for example 'swingeing' in the early 2010s around cuts/austerity.
My least favourite recent word-meme has been the use of '[x party] do not recognise this', a weaselly non-denial denial.
Tony Blair initiated a fashion for politicians to refuse to resile from their beliefs but it seems to have died out now.
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
Put Nicola Sturgeon on the case.
She is the expert when it comes to missing billions.
That’s one interpretation of the polling, but do you have evidence for it? Maybe these are voters who want right-wing politics, but are put off the Tories because of Johnson. To coax them back, you’d need a louder repudiation of Boris.
Maybe this is nothing to do with Boris. Maybe these are voters concerned about stopping the small boats, who are observing that the Government’s approach so far has completely failed to stop the small boats.
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
"The investigation of the criminal case against Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the Wagner Private Military Company, accused of organizing an armed mutiny, has not been closed, a source in the Russian Prosecutor General's Office confirmed to TASS:"
Still leaves me scratching my head wondering what Prigozhin was playing at.
The only thing I can muster is that he either got cold feet right at the last moment and desperately tried to find a way of exiting the situation, or that he was expecting things to snowball in the Kremlin to such a degree that he would have had figures in the government coming out in support, hence essentially being welcomed into Moscow by the time he arrived.
Jimmy Rushton @JimmySecUK Wagner still armed, Putin's authority publicly undermined, Shoigu absent, Prigozhin still being investigated for "armed rebellion" by the FSB, whilst numerous high profile Russian figures call for his execution.
You mean the Russian government deployed lies to achieve a goal and, when that goal was achieved, carried on as if they'd never been spoken? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.
That’s one interpretation of the polling, but do you have evidence for it? Maybe these are voters who want right-wing politics, but are put off the Tories because of Johnson. To coax them back, you’d need a louder repudiation of Boris.
Maybe this is nothing to do with Boris. Maybe these are voters concerned about stopping the small boats, who are observing that the Government’s approach so far has completely failed to stop the small boats.
As all of them voted for Boris in 2019 but aren't voting for the Tories again under Sunak I doubt your first para is correct.
Your second I agree on, Sunak needs to stop the boats with Braverman to win lots of them back
That’s one interpretation of the polling, but do you have evidence for it? Maybe these are voters who want right-wing politics, but are put off the Tories because of Johnson. To coax them back, you’d need a louder repudiation of Boris.
Maybe this is nothing to do with Boris. Maybe these are voters concerned about stopping the small boats, who are observing that the Government’s approach so far has completely failed to stop the small boats.
Maybe they're just the fruitcakes, nuts and loons who would say a weird meaningless party like that in the middle of the term anyway, even if some of them might then vote for a mainstream party at General Elections.
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
Put Nicola Sturgeon on the case.
She is the expert when it comes to missing billions.
Missing billions?
I suspect that you're an expert on saying something is much larger than it actually is.
"The investigation of the criminal case against Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the Wagner Private Military Company, accused of organizing an armed mutiny, has not been closed, a source in the Russian Prosecutor General's Office confirmed to TASS:"
Still leaves me scratching my head wondering what Prigozhin was playing at.
The only thing I can muster is that he either got cold feet right at the last moment and desperately tried to find a way of exiting the situation, or that he was expecting things to snowball in the Kremlin to such a degree that he would have had figures in the government coming out in support, hence essentially being welcomed into Moscow by the time he arrived.
Jimmy Rushton @JimmySecUK Wagner still armed, Putin's authority publicly undermined, Shoigu absent, Prigozhin still being investigated for "armed rebellion" by the FSB, whilst numerous high profile Russian figures call for his execution.
It is interesting that Putin didn’t make a statement on Saturday evening. It surely wouldn’t have harmed to make a “unity has prevailed, we go forward stronger than ever, God Bless The Motherland” kind of speech, given his rather desperate snarly rant at the start of the mutiny.
So what does it mean that he didn’t? Perhaps it’s nothing and it’s just that he didn’t want to look like he was eating humble pie or drawing more attention to the issue. But is there a possible scenario where he is no longer in control of events, and was ordered not to by someone? Most people do theorise he is not in the Kremlin right now.
A quiet coup could be going on under our noses.
Putin’s absence since Saturday morning, does give the impression that something is still very much ongoing behind the scenes. If he had put the rebellious orcs back in their place, he’d have been singing and dancing about it.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not? you must think to some extent about history and the law, by virtue of being on here, and if you have thought about them and concluded that they can be practised without the exercise of logical thinking you are not going to win any awards for general intellectual prowess.
Well maybe you have proved the point as you have made an illogical assumption. I said Engineers, Physics and Mathematics require logical thinking. I did not say (all or any) Historians and Lawyers lack logical thinking as can be proved by the posts from many on here. However you would be correct in assuming that I believe given two samples of both I would be inclined to assume the group of scientist would be more logical/intelligent, although I would also assume that sample would have a greater selection of oddballs in them as well (as per @HYUFD assumption which I do agree with).
Anyway after that ridiculous generalisation by me the other obvious flaw in your reply was how your reply started with 'Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not?' by the fact that you actually replied.
You are really bad at this, aren't you? The posts went
Someone: Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
You: Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
That can only mean that you think PPE/law/history do nt require logical thinking. There is no other way of interpreting it. It means that, or it is pointless.
So we have established that logical parsing of your own output is beyond you.
Maybe you should debate with someone who hasn't done a degree in Logic?
'Philosophy Please click on the link below to find general guidance on the course and logic exercises to complete and return.
That’s one interpretation of the polling, but do you have evidence for it? Maybe these are voters who want right-wing politics, but are put off the Tories because of Johnson. To coax them back, you’d need a louder repudiation of Boris.
Maybe this is nothing to do with Boris. Maybe these are voters concerned about stopping the small boats, who are observing that the Government’s approach so far has completely failed to stop the small boats.
As we approach the halfway point of the year, maybe we need a thread header on how Dishy's getting on with his Five Pledges?
Is he actually on track to achieve any of them*? Indeed, for four of the five, the evidence is showing the numbers moving in the opposite direction. Only in the one he really doesn't have actual control over - halving inflation - are the figures moving in a vaguely positively direction, albeit too slowly.
*Obviously not, but still worth asking as it illustrates his shaky politics.
Germany commits to station a armored brigade of 4.000 personnel in Lithuania.
For this Lithuania offers to begin construction of garrisons in 3 cities starting as early as 2025. These are to include training grounds, barracks and sustainment facilities. https://twitter.com/Jeff21461/status/1673278487845650432
Just as well they prepare for any surprises. Reportedly their intelligence services heard about Prigozhin's move some time after PB.
Perhaps as well there was a delay. If I recall correctly some PBers by Saturday afternoon were calling for NATO to go in bawsdeep supporting Ukraine while Putin was distracted, and in any case Vlad was going to be hanging from a lamp post by Sunday.
Leondamus predicted Putin would be gone by Tuesday. At that moment, Putin was safe.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
'Parse' is one I've recently noticed. It originally had a very technical meaning concerning grammatical analysis, but I've seen it increasing used as a mere synonym of 'understand / make sense of'. I wonder if people have heard about computers 'parsing' sentences (again a specifically technical process) and misconstrued what actually being said.
Can I also add 'quantum' to the list of misused terms? And also 'quantum leap'?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
The joke being that the EV shift gives the US a chance at restructuring the world car production system in its favour.
It will probably be deleterious to legacy us car makers, though. And definitely for the car dealers. Who seem a very Trumpet group - wacko Republicans are definitely their thing.
Car dealers are huge political donors, often intergenerational businesses, who are very wealthy and connected in their locality, always sponsoring community events and local minor-league sports teams.
IIRC, car dealer is the most common occupation for those earning more than $1m a year in the US.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
'Parse' is one I've recently noticed. It originally had a very technical meaning concerning grammatical analysis, but I've seen it increasing used as a mere synonym of 'understand / make sense of'. I wonder if people have heard about computers 'parsing' sentences (again a specifically technical process) and misconstrued what actually being said.
Can I also add 'quantum' to the list of misused terms? And also 'quantum leap'?
It’s really boring on here this morning. No Russian trolls to wind up in their own logical ineptitude.
What if they were never Russian trolls but actually Chinese trolls stirring it up? Try to cause arguments and criticise the west but also make the Russians look stupid.
An awful lot of Chinese students in the UK. We have a few doing self funded PhDs. Would not amaze if some were working on the side for the state...
A Chinese colleague at work tells me that it is quite common to have at least one Chinese student in a year at uni, in the U.K., working for the Chinese government. Keeping an eye on their fellow classmates etc.
Some are quite open about it - warning off their fellow students from getting involved in anything “anti-Chinese”.
At least one of 'our' PhD students from China is so poor its either a brilliant act or she is just terrible. Possibly the worst first year viva I've ever done...
Careful; since you have as good as doxxed yourself in the past, it might be possible to narrow down your student to exactly one person.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
'Parse' is one I've recently noticed. It originally had a very technical meaning concerning grammatical analysis, but I've seen it increasing used as a mere synonym of 'understand / make sense of'. I wonder if people have heard about computers 'parsing' sentences (again a specifically technical process) and misconstrued what actually being said.
Can I also add 'quantum' to the list of misused terms? And also 'quantum leap'?
To the point. Dirac-t, even 😀
Or, rather, blunt as a hit on the head with a planck?
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
Put Nicola Sturgeon on the case.
She is the expert when it comes to missing billions.
Missing billions?
I suspect that you're an expert on saying something is much larger than it actually is.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
At A-Levels I studied Maths, Further Maths, Physics, and History.
I thought about doing a degree in Maths, Physics, or History.
Up to the age of 16 I thought I'd end up being a doctor.
Trouble is, an awful lot of people who thought they'd end up being doctors do end up being doctors, and then taking several years off or going part-time because they hate being doctors.
"The investigation of the criminal case against Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the Wagner Private Military Company, accused of organizing an armed mutiny, has not been closed, a source in the Russian Prosecutor General's Office confirmed to TASS:"
Still leaves me scratching my head wondering what Prigozhin was playing at.
The only thing I can muster is that he either got cold feet right at the last moment and desperately tried to find a way of exiting the situation, or that he was expecting things to snowball in the Kremlin to such a degree that he would have had figures in the government coming out in support, hence essentially being welcomed into Moscow by the time he arrived.
Jimmy Rushton @JimmySecUK Wagner still armed, Putin's authority publicly undermined, Shoigu absent, Prigozhin still being investigated for "armed rebellion" by the FSB, whilst numerous high profile Russian figures call for his execution.
It is interesting that Putin didn’t make a statement on Saturday evening. It surely wouldn’t have harmed to make a “unity has prevailed, we go forward stronger than ever, God Bless The Motherland” kind of speech, given his rather desperate snarly rant at the start of the mutiny.
So what does it mean that he didn’t? Perhaps it’s nothing and it’s just that he didn’t want to look like he was eating humble pie or drawing more attention to the issue. But is there a possible scenario where he is no longer in control of events, and was ordered not to by someone? Most people do theorise he is not in the Kremlin right now.
A quiet coup could be going on under our noses.
Putin’s absence since Saturday morning, does give the impression that something is still very much ongoing behind the scenes. If he had put the rebellious orcs back in their place, he’d have been singing and dancing about it.
Apparently he has now surfaced in a video message to Young Engineers or some such. Of course, no idea when that was recorded, or where.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Most (all, depending on exact definitions) millenials should be of working age by now.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
At A-Levels I studied Maths, Further Maths, Physics, and History.
I thought about doing a degree in Maths, Physics, or History.
Up to the age of 16 I thought I'd end up being a doctor.
Trouble is, an awful lot of people who thought they'd end up being doctors do end up being doctors, and then taking several years off or going part-time because they hate being doctors.
In my experience some folk ended up being put under pressure by their parents to be doctors, hence taking Physics, Chemistry, Biology for A level whatever thir own wishes were. One of my fellow classmates was in that position - escaped, though, to become a watch officer in the UK nuclear deterrent subs. Much more congenial.
(I'm not suggesting that was actually so in TSE's case.)
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Every generation is irked by this as they get older.
Bit of a piss poor story by the BBC to be honest though....we deliberately got a camera with 6 year old firmware and put it on a network with no protection, so we could hack. Its a bit like saying I got a 6 year old unpatched version of Windows XP running no firewall or antivirus / antimalware and a security professional found that it was dead easy to get into.
Yes but the internet of things (or the internet of cameras) is full of unpatched devices.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Pretty much the English language, yes.
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
At A-Levels I studied Maths, Further Maths, Physics, and History.
I thought about doing a degree in Maths, Physics, or History.
Up to the age of 16 I thought I'd end up being a doctor.
Trouble is, an awful lot of people who thought they'd end up being doctors do end up being doctors, and then taking several years off or going part-time because they hate being doctors.
Or because they start families in their late 20s. IIRC, women are around 60% of new doctors, they’re more likely to marry within their own profession (or marry up) and form households that can survive on one salary for several years. Not an easy problem to solve.
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.
" The public primary was the size of a country school and now has 19 demountables. The closest shops were 20 minutes away; if she forgot milk, it was a 40-minute round trip, often in traffic. Trains came hourly, even at the peak. Narrow roads were choked. The hospital repeatedly promised for nearby Rouse Hill didn’t exist, and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, the population grows exponentially."... “They knew we were coming. Where did they think we were going to shop? Where did they think our children would go to school? It comes down to better planning. Stop rushing to get people into these houses.”...
But people moving into those areas say it takes more than a bunch of rapidly constructed houses to create a community. “So here’s what’s missing,” said Angela Van Dyke of the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service. “Everything. Public education. Public transport. Good urban design. Livability.”... Michelle Rowland, the Labor federal member for the north-west seat of Greenway (and also the communications minister), said the problem was due to a long-term failure of different levels of government to coordinate. “Developers, basically, in a lot of aspects, they do have free rein,” she said. “The incentive of the developer is to maximise land use to maximise profit. Which is why you have a lot of residents complaining [about] what normally they’d call overdevelopment, but a lot of it is to do with a lack of trees, a lack of environmental controls, houses are close together, streets are narrow.”
Presumably he'd say that given the people exist, that is better to have houses and no schools, than to have neither houses nor schools.
There is something in that argument , but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he sees the idea of town planning as being socially destructive and a massive cost with no benefits. The usual libertarian thing. But the contradiction is, that when you go and look at the libertarian societies they hold up as examples they tend to actually be quite well planned, ie Singapore and the USA, there is always an active state authority doing the zoning, brokering the economic development etc. I am pretty sure Japan will come in to this category as well.
It kind of is what I'm saying actually, yes.
As far as zoning etc is concerned, I'm perfectly fine with that. Pick your agricultural, natural and residential zones etc and the let the Council get out of the way of development within residential zones, even if natural/agricultural zones can't be developed. Which incidentally can work with 'green belt' desires, since you don't zone the green belt residential then.
Now of course personally I'd prefer the residential zones to be bigger than they are now, but that's a semi-separate debate.
Beyond that though, I am saying since we have a shortage of 3 million homes today, and we don't have 3 million homes with planning permission let alone under construction, then JFDI applies. Just frigging do it.
Get the homes built. Better to not be homeless.
Once the homes are built, of course better ideally to have commerce, schools etc - but in the mean time better to have a home than no home.
And of course since this is the UK, not Australia or Canada, even if there's no school [yet] within your area there will be schools not very far away. This isn't rural Alberta or Western Australia where your nearest town is 400 km away.
As I said, my kids go to a different school, in a different town, than the one where I live. There is a small primary and secondary school where I live, which kind of used to be a village but is now a new town [the overwhelming majority of houses in this town did not exist in 2010], but they are small and I like my kids school so we're not transferring them. My kids still have places in the school over the river and I drive them there. Oh and if I didn't drive, there are school buses that come down our road to collect kids to take them to where my kids go to school. I'm guessing we're far from unique in crossing the river to get to school, and there's an option via dedicated school buses for those who don't drive.
OK then. Your planning reform is to have residential 'zones' with planning permission granted for 3 million plus new houses. You now seem to be accepting that there is a heavy sacrifice (over and beyond what was identified in the example in linked to above) in terms of infrastructure provision, placemaking etc, but consider it is all necessary to deal with the over-riding housing need. You believe that it can and will all be worked out in some way afterwards.
I think this would be a disaster. It bakes in dependency on the car and the need for continuous expensive upgrades to roads and bridges for generations.
I also think that the JFDI direction will not actually deliver much more housing. Because as I have pointed out before, the housebuilding industry deliver about 100-150 k houses a year and nothing more and all the signs are that they would continue to do this under any new policy.
There would be some SME/self building going on but the industry is small and it is not going to be at any significant scale. It won't seriously come on stream until capacity in the construction industry is massively increased. And on these projects, someone else still has to build and fund the roads, the streetlights, the drains etc.
Prices may fall because of oversupply but they would quickly hit a level where new housebuilding becomes uneconomic in many areas because of build cost inflation. So my best guess is that you would quickly end up with lots of empty plots and a recession.
If you look through the post war history of housebuilding it is very clear that the only time the government delivers 300,000 houses a year is when it builds half of them itself.
Sorry but you've got your own assumptions then have worked backwards from there.
Firstly there's no need for it all to be dependent on the car, in fact the opposite is possible too. If existing residential zones become denser and build up then that can lead to public transport becoming more efficient, not less. Not that I have any objection to the motor vehicle, but I think my proposal if implemented would see places like London seeing building up happening and I wouldn't expect those to be all homes relying upon cars.
Secondly all the evidence from around the planet is that without planning being an insurmountable obstacle is that SME/self-building should happen at a very significant scale. In almost every country with my proposed system, SME/self-builds happen at orders of magnitude more than here.
As far as funding the roads etc is concerned that needs to happen either way, planning or no planning. That's what the tax system is for. We pay our taxes, we need roads and transportation. Politicians need to do their job. If you want to put a tax on new houses that goes to a pot to pay towards new roads, then I have no philosophical objection to that, but we pay our taxes either way.
As far as prices are concerned, too much of the price of new homes currently is planning itself. If that ceases to be the case, then prices can fall without hurting development. If land becomes cheaper, but taxed more [two prongs to this] then land-banking would never happen and people are encouraged to get on with it rather than to dawdle.
Finally its very clear in the history of housebuilding around the planet, that when competition is allowed to flourish and demand is high then people can and do get on with it. The city of Tokyo alone [population 14 million] has consistently delivered more new homes than the entirety of England combined. As a former cheese loving Prime Minister might have said: That. Is. A. Disgrace.
Saying that our current system isn't working, so therefore reform is pointless, rather misses the point don't you think?
Ok. So you are now going to insist that the houses are built more densely to avoid the problem of 'suburban sprawl'. How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards? At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards? Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Millennials don't seem to get irked by it. Perhaps when they leave school and get jobs their attitudes will change though.
Every generation is irked by this as they get older.
Sure. But some of us spot the hopeless ambiguities and avoid those words in our writing. Others never accept them [edit] but continue to use the words. Particularly if it means they can cause offence or fight some sort of perceived battle in some sort of perceived woke war.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
'Trump' used to mean beat/win. Now it means loser.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
'Trump' used to mean beat/win. Now it means loser.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Pretty much the English language, yes.
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
No we wouldn't - we never spoke Latin!
To be clear, I don't mind us adding to our language. But I don't see how it benefits anyone when words change their meanings. We might be using words differently to how our ancestors used them. But that doesn't mean the process of them changing their meanings was positive.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
Still used, even if 'serious context' is stretching it in this particular case:
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
No-one’s managed to stop words changing meaning before. I think that’s reason to give up, or at least to ask people why they think they will have more luck trying to stop this happening today.
Words changing meaning often means new words are created. “Nephew” used to have a more generic meaning and became more specific, which is useful. Likewise, “meat” used to mean any food and became more specific. English has such a large vocabulary today because words changed meaning.
Bit of a piss poor story by the BBC to be honest though....we deliberately got a camera with 6 year old firmware and put it on a network with no protection, so we could hack. Its a bit like saying I got a 6 year old unpatched version of Windows XP running no firewall or antivirus / antimalware and a security professional found that it was dead easy to get into.
Yes but the internet of things (or the internet of cameras) is full of unpatched devices.
The Chinese tat cameras I have all attempt to phone home regardless of device settings.
Obviously I block them from internet access and only allow inward viewing via my own VPN but you do wonder what is being done with all that data.
Bit of a piss poor story by the BBC to be honest though....we deliberately got a camera with 6 year old firmware and put it on a network with no protection, so we could hack. Its a bit like saying I got a 6 year old unpatched version of Windows XP running no firewall or antivirus / antimalware and a security professional found that it was dead easy to get into.
Yes but the internet of things (or the internet of cameras) is full of unpatched devices.
Sure. But the angle of the story is Hikvision can't be trusted. On this specific issue, they released a firmware patch for this 6 years ago, then BBC set up an artificial scenario to show it can be hacked using the exploit released prior to that patch. As I said, its a bit like saying well an old version of Windows can be hacked because I didn't patch it nor put it behind a firewall. That doesn't then make Microsoft look like a US state actor or a company we should worry about.
Now if they had revealed there was still a backdoor into the camera despite the patch or the show they are transmitting your video to them, now that would be a story. And of course the wider story about should we be trusting the like of Hikvision for cameras all over the country, now that is definitely worthy of discussion.
But on this specific story, its piss poor. General IoT marketed products are unsafe isn't the angle they are going for (which is certainly yet another story worthy of discussion, because they are and authorities really not caught on yet.
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.
" The public primary was the size of a country school and now has 19 demountables. The closest shops were 20 minutes away; if she forgot milk, it was a 40-minute round trip, often in traffic. Trains came hourly, even at the peak. Narrow roads were choked. The hospital repeatedly promised for nearby Rouse Hill didn’t exist, and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, the population grows exponentially."... “They knew we were coming. Where did they think we were going to shop? Where did they think our children would go to school? It comes down to better planning. Stop rushing to get people into these houses.”...
But people moving into those areas say it takes more than a bunch of rapidly constructed houses to create a community. “So here’s what’s missing,” said Angela Van Dyke of the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service. “Everything. Public education. Public transport. Good urban design. Livability.”... Michelle Rowland, the Labor federal member for the north-west seat of Greenway (and also the communications minister), said the problem was due to a long-term failure of different levels of government to coordinate. “Developers, basically, in a lot of aspects, they do have free rein,” she said. “The incentive of the developer is to maximise land use to maximise profit. Which is why you have a lot of residents complaining [about] what normally they’d call overdevelopment, but a lot of it is to do with a lack of trees, a lack of environmental controls, houses are close together, streets are narrow.”
Presumably he'd say that given the people exist, that is better to have houses and no schools, than to have neither houses nor schools.
There is something in that argument , but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he sees the idea of town planning as being socially destructive and a massive cost with no benefits. The usual libertarian thing. But the contradiction is, that when you go and look at the libertarian societies they hold up as examples they tend to actually be quite well planned, ie Singapore and the USA, there is always an active state authority doing the zoning, brokering the economic development etc. I am pretty sure Japan will come in to this category as well.
It kind of is what I'm saying actually, yes.
As far as zoning etc is concerned, I'm perfectly fine with that. Pick your agricultural, natural and residential zones etc and the let the Council get out of the way of development within residential zones, even if natural/agricultural zones can't be developed. Which incidentally can work with 'green belt' desires, since you don't zone the green belt residential then.
Now of course personally I'd prefer the residential zones to be bigger than they are now, but that's a semi-separate debate.
Beyond that though, I am saying since we have a shortage of 3 million homes today, and we don't have 3 million homes with planning permission let alone under construction, then JFDI applies. Just frigging do it.
Get the homes built. Better to not be homeless.
Once the homes are built, of course better ideally to have commerce, schools etc - but in the mean time better to have a home than no home.
And of course since this is the UK, not Australia or Canada, even if there's no school [yet] within your area there will be schools not very far away. This isn't rural Alberta or Western Australia where your nearest town is 400 km away.
As I said, my kids go to a different school, in a different town, than the one where I live. There is a small primary and secondary school where I live, which kind of used to be a village but is now a new town [the overwhelming majority of houses in this town did not exist in 2010], but they are small and I like my kids school so we're not transferring them. My kids still have places in the school over the river and I drive them there. Oh and if I didn't drive, there are school buses that come down our road to collect kids to take them to where my kids go to school. I'm guessing we're far from unique in crossing the river to get to school, and there's an option via dedicated school buses for those who don't drive.
OK then. Your planning reform is to have residential 'zones' with planning permission granted for 3 million plus new houses. You now seem to be accepting that there is a heavy sacrifice (over and beyond what was identified in the example in linked to above) in terms of infrastructure provision, placemaking etc, but consider it is all necessary to deal with the over-riding housing need. You believe that it can and will all be worked out in some way afterwards.
I think this would be a disaster. It bakes in dependency on the car and the need for continuous expensive upgrades to roads and bridges for generations. I also think that the JFDI direction will not actually deliver much more housing. Because as I have pointed out before, the housebuilding industry deliver about 100-150 k houses a year and nothing more and all the signs are that they would continue to do this under any new policy.
There would be some SME/self building going on but the industry is small and it is not going to be at any significant scale. It won't seriously come on stream until capacity in the construction industry is massively increased. And on these projects, someone else still has to build and fund the roads, the streetlights, the drains etc.
Prices may fall because of oversupply but they would quickly hit a level where new housebuilding becomes uneconomic in many areas because of build cost inflation. So my best guess is that you would quickly end up with lots of empty plots and a recession.
If you look through the post war history of housebuilding it is very clear that the only time the government delivers 300,000 houses a year is when it builds half of them itself.
Sorry but you've got your own assumptions then have worked backwards from there.
Firstly there's no need for it all to be dependent on the car, in fact the opposite is possible too. If existing residential zones become denser and build up then that can lead to public transport becoming more efficient, not less. Not that I have any objection to the motor vehicle, but I think my proposal if implemented would see places like London seeing building up happening and I wouldn't expect those to be all homes relying upon cars.
Secondly all the evidence from around the planet is that without planning being an insurmountable obstacle is that SME/self-building should happen at a very significant scale. In almost every country with my proposed system, SME/self-builds happen at orders of magnitude more than here.
As far as funding the roads etc is concerned that needs to happen either way, planning or no planning. That's what the tax system is for. We pay our taxes, we need roads and transportation. Politicians need to do their job. If you want to put a tax on new houses that goes to a pot to pay towards new roads, then I have no philosophical objection to that, but we pay our taxes either way.
As far as prices are concerned, too much of the price of new homes currently is planning itself. If that ceases to be the case, then prices can fall without hurting development. If land becomes cheaper, but taxed more [two prongs to this] then land-banking would never happen and people are encouraged to get on with it rather than to dawdle.
Finally its very clear in the history of housebuilding around the planet, that when competition is allowed to flourish and demand is high then people can and do get on with it. The city of Tokyo alone [population 14 million] has consistently delivered more new homes than the entirety of England combined. As a former cheese loving Prime Minister might have said: That. Is. A. Disgrace.
Saying that our current system isn't working, so therefore reform is pointless, rather misses the point don't you think?
Ok. So you are now going to insist that the houses are built more densely to avoid the problem of 'suburban sprawl'. How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards? At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards? Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
No, I'm not going to "insist" that houses are built more densely. What part of it is it that you're struggling to understand, I don't think anyone should insist upon anything, myself included.
Let the owner of the land decide.
Where land is valuable in its own right, rather than because of planning, eg in cities then building up will probably happen not because you or I want it, but because that's the most effective use of land so people will choose to do it.
Transit routes, along with schooling and other public services should evolve over time, you might have an initial idea but it shouldn't ever be ossified. People change and adapt what they use. An area that is bought out by young people may end up becoming embraced by old people - sometimes the same ex-young people who never moved.
We need to evolve over time, not plan something based on the needs of decades ago.
Yes the 2020 reforms were a good idea, didn't go as far as I'd like but a big step in the right direction, its a shame they were dropped.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
At A-Levels I studied Maths, Further Maths, Physics, and History.
I thought about doing a degree in Maths, Physics, or History.
Up to the age of 16 I thought I'd end up being a doctor.
Trouble is, an awful lot of people who thought they'd end up being doctors do end up being doctors, and then taking several years off or going part-time because they hate being doctors.
In my experience some folk ended up being put under pressure by their parents to be doctors, hence taking Physics, Chemistry, Biology for A level whatever thir own wishes were. One of my fellow classmates was in that position - escaped, though, to become a watch officer in the UK nuclear deterrent subs. Much more congenial.
(I'm not suggesting that was actually so in TSE's case.)
No... Might be unfair, but I struggle to see TSE as a watch officer in a UK nuclear deterrent sub.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
The joke being that the EV shift gives the US a chance at restructuring the world car production system in its favour.
It will probably be deleterious to legacy us car makers, though. And definitely for the car dealers. Who seem a very Trumpet group - wacko Republicans are definitely their thing.
Car dealers are huge political donors, often intergenerational businesses, who are very wealthy and connected in their locality, always sponsoring community events and local minor-league sports teams.
IIRC, car dealer is the most common occupation for those earning more than $1m a year in the US.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
At A-Levels I studied Maths, Further Maths, Physics, and History.
I thought about doing a degree in Maths, Physics, or History.
Up to the age of 16 I thought I'd end up being a doctor.
Trouble is, an awful lot of people who thought they'd end up being doctors do end up being doctors, and then taking several years off or going part-time because they hate being doctors.
In my experience some folk ended up being put under pressure by their parents to be doctors, hence taking Physics, Chemistry, Biology for A level whatever thir own wishes were. One of my fellow classmates was in that position - escaped, though, to become a watch officer in the UK nuclear deterrent subs. Much more congenial.
(I'm not suggesting that was actually so in TSE's case.)
No... Might be unfair, but I struggle to see TSE as a watch officer in a UK nuclear deterrent sub.
The uniform footwear is a bit of a problem, I realise.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Pretty much the English language, yes.
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
No we wouldn't - we never spoke Latin!
To be clear, I don't mind us adding to our language. But I don't see how it benefits anyone when words change their meanings. We might be using words differently to how our ancestors used them. But that doesn't mean the process of them changing their meanings was positive.
I think its incredibly useful to see how words change their meanings.
Words meanings evolve because the new meaning has more use than the old one, so the new usage supersedes the old one.
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
The joke being that the EV shift gives the US a chance at restructuring the world car production system in its favour.
It will probably be deleterious to legacy us car makers, though. And definitely for the car dealers. Who seem a very Trumpet group - wacko Republicans are definitely their thing.
Car dealers are huge political donors, often intergenerational businesses, who are very wealthy and connected in their locality, always sponsoring community events and local minor-league sports teams.
IIRC, car dealer is the most common occupation for those earning more than $1m a year in the US.
THe problem for the Franchised dealers is that few people like them and GM / Ford have spent the last 20 years trying to bypass them..
Oh indeed. They’re mostly terrible middlemen, inserting themselves into a transaction against the wishes of both the supplier and customer. In the last couple of years they’ve been particularly egregious, adding huge markups to cars as supplies ran dry.
But they have the ear of state legislators, and can write their own protectionist Bills.
Bit of a piss poor story by the BBC to be honest though....we deliberately got a camera with 6 year old firmware and put it on a network with no protection, so we could hack. Its a bit like saying I got a 6 year old unpatched version of Windows XP running no firewall or antivirus / antimalware and a security professional found that it was dead easy to get into.
Yes but the internet of things (or the internet of cameras) is full of unpatched devices.
Sure. But the angle of the story is Hikvision can't be trusted. On this specific issue, they released a firmware patch for this 6 years ago, then BBC set up an artificial scenario to show it can be hacked using the exploit released prior to that patch. As I said, its a bit like saying well an old version of Windows can be hacked because I didn't patch it nor put it behind a firewall.
Now if they had revealed there was still a backdoor into the camera despite the patch, now that would be a story. And of course the wider story about should we be trusting the like of Hikvision for cameras all over the country, now that is definitely worthy of discussion.
But on this specific story, its piss poor. General IoT marketed products are unsafe isn't the angle they are going for (which is certainly yet another story worthy of discussion).
Yes, but my point was that it is not useful to issue firmware patches to devices already deployed by people who would not know a firmware patch from a hole in a firewall. It is good that new devices are secure when they leave the factory but there is an awful lot of deployed kit out there whose only saving grace is that not even President Xi cares what you get up to in Acacia Avenue.
UK's National Cancer Research Institute is to close down after more than 20 years over concerns about its funding. I am told this infrastructure is vital to cancer clinical trials across UK.
Not because it doesn't have important work to do but because no-one in Government wants to pay for it.
"...Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder. Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels. Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies. Elves are glamorous. They project glamour. Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment. Elves are terrific. They beget terror. The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake... Nobody said elves were nice. Elves are bad...."
Bit of a piss poor story by the BBC to be honest though....we deliberately got a camera with 6 year old firmware and put it on a network with no protection, so we could hack. Its a bit like saying I got a 6 year old unpatched version of Windows XP running no firewall or antivirus / antimalware and a security professional found that it was dead easy to get into.
Yes but the internet of things (or the internet of cameras) is full of unpatched devices.
Sure. But the angle of the story is Hikvision can't be trusted. On this specific issue, they released a firmware patch for this 6 years ago, then BBC set up an artificial scenario to show it can be hacked using the exploit released prior to that patch. As I said, its a bit like saying well an old version of Windows can be hacked because I didn't patch it nor put it behind a firewall.
Now if they had revealed there was still a backdoor into the camera despite the patch, now that would be a story. And of course the wider story about should we be trusting the like of Hikvision for cameras all over the country, now that is definitely worthy of discussion.
But on this specific story, its piss poor. General IoT marketed products are unsafe isn't the angle they are going for (which is certainly yet another story worthy of discussion).
Yes, but my point was that it is not useful to issue firmware patches to devices already deployed by people who would not know a firmware patch from a hole in a firewall. It is good that new devices are secure when they leave the factory but there is an awful lot of deployed kit out there whose only saving grace is that not even President Xi cares what you get up to in Acacia Avenue.
That’s why everyone with a big house or a small business, needs to have a local independent technology consultant
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
No-one’s managed to stop words changing meaning before. I think that’s reason to give up, or at least to ask people why they think they will have more luck trying to stop this happening today.
Words changing meaning often means new words are created. “Nephew” used to have a more generic meaning and became more specific, which is useful. Likewise, “meat” used to mean any food and became more specific. English has such a large vocabulary today because words changed meaning.
Just because words have changed meanings before doesn't mean we should give up! A world where we words mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean is a world where we comunicate poorly. I have no objection to new words. But I object to losing words. As I said before, if literally doesn't literally mean literally, what word can we use? If disinterested comes to mean indifferent, we have two words which mean indifferent and none which mean disinterested. Surely we can agree this is an inefficient use of language?
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
Put Nicola Sturgeon on the case.
She is the expert when it comes to missing billions.
Bellend comment from a prize bellend A few real examples of real billions missing, need a week to put them all in .......... Tories slammed for losing around £15bn of taxpayer cash to Covid fraud UK lost up to £16bn due to fraud and error in Covid loans schemes £21bn of public money lost in fraud since COVID pandemic began and most will never be recovered
UK's National Cancer Research Institute is to close down after more than 20 years over concerns about its funding. I am told this infrastructure is vital to cancer clinical trials across UK.
Not because it doesn't have important work to do but because no-one in Government wants to pay for it.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
Still used, even if 'serious context' is stretching it in this particular case:
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
How odd; 'triplicate' is already in the dictionary, and it is a noun, adjective and verb.
'HM Revenue and Customs handed out fines to 184,000 people paid less than £12,500 a year – the level under which people were then not subject to income tax – in the 2020-21 financial year (the latest for which full figures are available) for failing to complete a self-assessment tax form on time.
Many of these people, already in severe financial difficulties, misunderstood the initial fine and were then subjected to further fines and interest. Some people were left facing fines of thousands of pounds, which would take them many years to pay.'
I suppose they have to make up for all those IHT allowances to well-off Tory voters. But really? Almost 20K people?
The law is the law whatever you earn, if they failed to submit their self-assessment tax form by the deadline then they would be fined, as would anyone who failed to do so
If only they were as assidious with the billions missing annually from the rich gits.
Put Nicola Sturgeon on the case.
She is the expert when it comes to missing billions.
Missing billions?
I suspect that you're an expert on saying something is much larger than it actually is.
There are indeed. Though not necessarily where your interlocutors seem to think. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/1055/report.html Seventh Annual Report of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts 1. Foreword Welcome to my 7th annual report as Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts (the Committee).
This report covers the period that the country opened up after two years of lockdowns.
We have continued to monitor the money spent on Covid-19 although with increasing frustration that much of the money lost through fraud is unlikely to be recovered...
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
No-one’s managed to stop words changing meaning before. I think that’s reason to give up, or at least to ask people why they think they will have more luck trying to stop this happening today.
Words changing meaning often means new words are created. “Nephew” used to have a more generic meaning and became more specific, which is useful. Likewise, “meat” used to mean any food and became more specific. English has such a large vocabulary today because words changed meaning.
Just because words have changed meanings before doesn't mean we should give up! A world where we words mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean is a world where we comunicate poorly. I have no objection to new words. But I object to losing words. As I said before, if literally doesn't literally mean literally, what word can we use? If disinterested comes to mean indifferent, we have two words which mean indifferent and none which mean disinterested. Surely we can agree this is an inefficient use of language?
Languages are not designed things that can maximise efficiency (with maybe a couple of constructed language exceptions). They live and they change. (That does not mean words can mean whatever the speaker chooses to mean: that’s a weird straw man argument of no relevance here.)
Maybe it’s a good thing that languages evolve, maybe it’s a bad thing, but I see little point in being King Cnut on the beach.
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.
" The public primary was the size of a country school and now has 19 demountables. The closest shops were 20 minutes away; if she forgot milk, it was a 40-minute round trip, often in traffic. Trains came hourly, even at the peak. Narrow roads were choked. The hospital repeatedly promised for nearby Rouse Hill didn’t exist, and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, the population grows exponentially."... “They knew we were coming. Where did they think we were going to shop? Where did they think our children would go to school? It comes down to better planning. Stop rushing to get people into these houses.”...
But people moving into those areas say it takes more than a bunch of rapidly constructed houses to create a community. “So here’s what’s missing,” said Angela Van Dyke of the Riverstone Neighbourhood Centre and Community Aid Service. “Everything. Public education. Public transport. Good urban design. Livability.”... Michelle Rowland, the Labor federal member for the north-west seat of Greenway (and also the communications minister), said the problem was due to a long-term failure of different levels of government to coordinate. “Developers, basically, in a lot of aspects, they do have free rein,” she said. “The incentive of the developer is to maximise land use to maximise profit. Which is why you have a lot of residents complaining [about] what normally they’d call overdevelopment, but a lot of it is to do with a lack of trees, a lack of environmental controls, houses are close together, streets are narrow.”
Presumably he'd say that given the people exist, that is better to have houses and no schools, than to have neither houses nor schools.
There is something in that argument , but I don't think that is what he is saying. I think he sees the idea of town planning as being socially destructive and a massive cost with no benefits. The usual libertarian thing. But the contradiction is, that when you go and look at the libertarian societies they hold up as examples they tend to actually be quite well planned, ie Singapore and the USA, there is always an active state authority doing the zoning, brokering the economic development etc. I am pretty sure Japan will come in to this category as well.
It kind of is what I'm saying actually, yes.
As far as zoning etc is concerned, I'm perfectly fine with that. Pick your agricultural, natural and residential zones etc and the let the Council get out of the way of development within residential zones, even if natural/agricultural zones can't be developed. Which incidentally can work with 'green belt' desires, since you don't zone the green belt residential then.
Now of course personally I'd prefer the residential zones to be bigger than they are now, but that's a semi-separate debate.
Beyond that though, I am saying since we have a shortage of 3 million homes today, and we don't have 3 million homes with planning permission let alone under construction, then JFDI applies. Just frigging do it.
Get the homes built. Better to not be homeless.
Once the homes are built, of course better ideally to have commerce, schools etc - but in the mean time better to have a home than no home.
And of course since this is the UK, not Australia or Canada, even if there's no school [yet] within your area there will be schools not very far away. This isn't rural Alberta or Western Australia where your nearest town is 400 km away.
As I said, my kids go to a different school, in a different town, than the one where I live. There is a small primary and secondary school where I live, which kind of used to be a village but is now a new town [the overwhelming majority of houses in this town did not exist in 2010], but they are small and I like my kids school so we're not transferring them. My kids still have places in the school over the river and I drive them there. Oh and if I didn't drive, there are school buses that come down our road to collect kids to take them to where my kids go to school. I'm guessing we're far from unique in crossing the river to get to school, and there's an option via dedicated school buses for those who don't drive.
OK then. Your planning reform is to have residential 'zones' with planning permission granted for 3 million plus new houses. You now seem to be accepting that there is a heavy sacrifice (over and beyond what was identified in the example in linked to above) in terms of infrastructure provision, placemaking etc, but consider it is all necessary to deal with the over-riding housing need. You believe that it can and will all be worked out in some way afterwards.
I think this would be a disaster. It bakes in dependency on the car and the need for continuous expensive upgrades to roads and bridges for generations. I also think that the JFDI direction will not actually deliver much more housing. Because as I have pointed out before, the housebuilding industry deliver about 100-150 k houses a year and nothing more and all the signs are that they would continue to do this under any new policy.
There would be some SME/self building going on but the industry is small and it is not going to be at any significant scale. It won't seriously come on stream until capacity in the construction industry is massively increased. And on these projects, someone else still has to build and fund the roads, the streetlights, the drains etc.
Prices may fall because of oversupply but they would quickly hit a level where new housebuilding becomes uneconomic in many areas because of build cost inflation. So my best guess is that you would quickly end up with lots of empty plots and a recession.
If you look through the post war history of housebuilding it is very clear that the only time the government delivers 300,000 houses a year is when it builds half of them itself.
Sorry but you've got your own assumptions then have worked backwards from there.
Firstly there's no need for it all to be dependent on the car, in fact the opposite is possible too. If existing residential zones become denser and build up then that can lead to public transport becoming more efficient, not less. Not that I have any objection to the motor vehicle, but I think my proposal if implemented would see places like London seeing building up happening and I wouldn't expect those to be all homes relying upon cars.
Secondly all the evidence from around the planet is that without planning being an insurmountable obstacle is that SME/self-building should happen at a very significant scale. In almost every country with my proposed system, SME/self-builds happen at orders of magnitude more than here.
As far as funding the roads etc is concerned that needs to happen either way, planning or no planning. That's what the tax system is for. We pay our taxes, we need roads and transportation. Politicians need to do their job. If you want to put a tax on new houses that goes to a pot to pay towards new roads, then I have no philosophical objection to that, but we pay our taxes either way.
As far as prices are concerned, too much of the price of new homes currently is planning itself. If that ceases to be the case, then prices can fall without hurting development. If land becomes cheaper, but taxed more [two prongs to this] then land-banking would never happen and people are encouraged to get on with it rather than to dawdle.
Finally its very clear in the history of housebuilding around the planet, that when competition is allowed to flourish and demand is high then people can and do get on with it. The city of Tokyo alone [population 14 million] has consistently delivered more new homes than the entirety of England combined. As a former cheese loving Prime Minister might have said: That. Is. A. Disgrace.
Saying that our current system isn't working, so therefore reform is pointless, rather misses the point don't you think?
Ok. So you are now going to insist that the houses are built more densely to avoid the problem of 'suburban sprawl'. How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards? At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards? Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
No, I'm not going to "insist" that houses are built more densely. What part of it is it that you're struggling to understand, I don't think anyone should insist upon anything, myself included.
Let the owner of the land decide.
Where land is valuable in its own right, rather than because of planning, eg in cities then building up will probably happen not because you or I want it, but because that's the most effective use of land so people will choose to do it.
Transit routes, along with schooling and other public services should evolve over time, you might have an initial idea but it shouldn't ever be ossified. People change and adapt what they use. An area that is bought out by young people may end up becoming embraced by old people - sometimes the same ex-young people who never moved.
We need to evolve over time, not plan something based on the needs of decades ago.
Yes the 2020 reforms were a good idea, didn't go as far as I'd like but a big step in the right direction, its a shame they were dropped.
In the end I think you probably want a different system of planning, not the abolition of planning.
My criticism however is that you are presenting a superficially easy answer ("scrap planning") to a complicated question.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
The Americans don’t use it, but it’s still going strong on this side of the Atlantic.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Threequel (sequel to a sequel) Legacy sequel (one done decades after the original, eg Blade Runner 2049)
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
How odd; 'triplicate' is already in the dictionary, and it is a noun, adjective and verb.
I've never heard it used as a verb (presumably to rhyme with 'replicate')? I like that immensely.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
That's right, I've not heard it for a couple of weeks at least.
A few years back, I went to a Rock festival in Germany with 100k+ people and it was nothing like this at the end.
A cheap way to go to Glastonbury is as a volunteer doing things like rubbish collections.
How about the people who attended Glastonbury being the ones to clear up their own rubbish?
Just a thought. 🤔
That’s a ridiculous idea. The people attending Glastonbury are too busy talking about saving the planet, to actually save the planet.
When I went to Reading festival a couple of years back, there were bins all over the place. They were handing out free rubbish bags. There were paid rubbish pickers.
And still the group was so full of plastic, that the only way I could see to deal with it would be to wait until the festival was over. Then scrape and sieve the all topsoil to a depth of about 6 inches…
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
How odd; 'triplicate' is already in the dictionary, and it is a noun, adjective and verb.
I've never heard it used as a verb (presumably to rhyme with 'replicate')? I like that immensely.
'Duplicate', I think, must be the more direct analogy - though 'replicate' is obviously a more general form, all from the same root.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Don't hear fortnight so much these days either
It was only a few years ago I found out fortnight was in any way endangered, and that Americans find our use of it quaint. Did you know that as well as fortnight (a contraction of 'fourteen night', of course) there was once a term 'sennight' as a perfectly cromulent synonym for 'week'?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Pretty much the English language, yes.
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
No we wouldn't - we never spoke Latin!
To be clear, I don't mind us adding to our language. But I don't see how it benefits anyone when words change their meanings. We might be using words differently to how our ancestors used them. But that doesn't mean the process of them changing their meanings was positive.
Of course some of our ancestors did speak Latin. What else were they going to speak when they came here as part of the Roman army?
Absurd Luddism - but this is perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish.
What new word did little Donald learn today?
He doesn't know what decimate means. He thinks it means cutting 50% or whatever other numbers he has in his mind.
Decimate is either one of the words in the English language that is most widely misused, or its usage has strayed so far from its original meaning that the latter is no longer relevant. I tend to go with the second statement.
Yes, lots of examples of that, although right now, under pressure, all eyes on me, I can't think of a single one.
Literally is literally no 1 on the misuse front.
The misuse of literally is out of control, especially among millenials. If you walk past a large group of people in their twenties or thirties you will almost certainly hear at least one of them say "literally" while you pass. It's not just misused though, it is also inserted into conversation when it is not technically wrong, but is redundant. It's become a verbal tic for a lot of people, and generally marks out its user as basic.
I think it is widely understood as an intensifier rather than literally having its literal meaning now. Fusty types like me still use it 'properly', and find amusement in people like Jamie Redknapp saying 'he's literally been on fire this season'; 'he's literally turned his opponent inside out' etc. but I have accepted that usage has changed and we have to move on.
I still pronounce 'harassment' to rhyme with 'embarrassment' too (without, fnarr, the hard 'ass') too.
The reason for the rear-guard action here (though I will defend the meaning of pretty much all words) is that when used as an intsensifier, it's use is not just different to but the exact opposite of it's literal meaning. And if 'literally' no longer means 'literally', which word should I use when I mean 'literally'?
“Awesome” (something that is so terrifying it produces awe) used to mean something was bad, while “awful” meant something was good (something awe-inspiring and worthy of respect). Likewise, “terrific” was something bad, as in something terrifying.
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
Nice also used to mean 'neat/tidy'.
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Can you think of an example where the older generation managed to persuade the younger that their habitual usage of a word was incorrect, and get them to change ?
On the subject of linguistic monstrosities, the one I can't stand is "yourself" when people mean "you". It really grates for reasons I can't really explain.
Is it good or bad that I, as a former Cons member and Cameroonite Tory had to google Steve Barclay?
Meanwhile if we're talking about Steves I still think that Baker could be the right one to be party leader. V sensible bloke, disagree with him 100% on Brexit but he seems to be smart enough to be pragmatic now that we're here.
I've bet accordingly.
He’s a Cambridge educated lawyer, misunderestimate him at your own risk.
Suella Braverman is also a Cambridge educated lawyer.
The next Tory leadership election could herald a golden age for the Tory party and the country if Braverman and Barclay make it to the final two.
He's a Cambridge educated historian, who then trained as a lawyer.
So Suella it is.
Portillo was also a Cambridge educated historian, Ken Clarke and Michael Howard Cambridge educated lawyers too.
Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
Ducks as historians and lawyers here react.
Why? If they wanted to be engineers or physicists or mathematicians or accountants or work in industry those might be more relevant but law and history are more relevant for lawmaking and government policy. Albeit Thatcher did Chemistry of course but then did a law course as well after
Well my comment was just to get a reaction, and just to add to the wind up, is it possible that the reason they did not do, say Physics or Maths was because they lacked the ability to do it (that is my experience). I doubt most people did their specific degrees because they wanted a career in it (with the exception of vocations eg medical degrees). They did them because of a talent in that area or an interest.
Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not? you must think to some extent about history and the law, by virtue of being on here, and if you have thought about them and concluded that they can be practised without the exercise of logical thinking you are not going to win any awards for general intellectual prowess.
Well maybe you have proved the point as you have made an illogical assumption. I said Engineers, Physics and Mathematics require logical thinking. I did not say (all or any) Historians and Lawyers lack logical thinking as can be proved by the posts from many on here. However you would be correct in assuming that I believe given two samples of both I would be inclined to assume the group of scientist would be more logical/intelligent, although I would also assume that sample would have a greater selection of oddballs in them as well (as per @HYUFD assumption which I do agree with).
Anyway after that ridiculous generalisation by me the other obvious flaw in your reply was how your reply started with 'Bit of a fail as a wind up, is it not?' by the fact that you actually replied.
You are really bad at this, aren't you? The posts went
Someone: Cambridge educated politicians tend to do law or history at university (Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting was history too on the Labour side from Cambridge), whereas Oxford politicians Tory or Labour or LD are almost all PPE
You: Shame most of them don't do useful stuff like Engineering, Physics, Mathematics which require logical thinking.
That can only mean that you think PPE/law/history do nt require logical thinking. There is no other way of interpreting it. It means that, or it is pointless.
So we have established that logical parsing of your own output is beyond you.
Maybe you should debate with someone who hasn't done a degree in Logic?
Hahaha.
So, explain how your post does not imply that PPE/law/history do not require logical thinking.
Got to go. House clearance to sort. Come back to me in a few hours.
Hahaha.
Have you got a screwloose or something? I have just arrived at my deceased father's house waiting for a house clearance quote. When I said I would get back to you I meant it. Some of us have other things to do than post here. Honestly.
Sorry for your loss.
One tip if the quote is 'you pay them' - speak to a general auction house as they'll often clear for free and then give you the proceeds of the sale of stuff...
This is a thing. Happened with my aunt. The most valuable thing was a mirror which covered most of the hall wall, say 15ft by 10ft. Everyone was whoop whooping about it until they literally (!) smashed it taking it off the wall (it had been there for over 70yrs).
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Eugh threepeat is not something I have heard before. Thanks for putting that monstrosity in my mind.
You need to listen to more US sports commentary for similar gems like 'winningest'.
I didn't think I needed any additional reason not to listen to US sports commentary but it's good to have this in my back pocket if needed.
While we're at it, I've also been a bit puzzled by the disappearance of 'thrice'. It's a perfectly useful word, but no one would ever now think of using it in a serious context. Why did it die off and when?
I blame Lionel Ritchie.
I rather like 'thrice'. I'm not averse to using it, though I might demur from using it in a document I'm writing for work. But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
Comments
One tip if the quote is 'you pay them' - speak to a general auction house as they'll often clear for free and then give you the proceeds of the sale of stuff...
I use deny to mean deny, refute in its correct sense of destroying an argument, and rebut to mean 'deny with reasons'. FWIW.
As we saw during COVID, people struggled with the idea of exponential growth.....
Terrific, even.
Literally.
Occasionally fashions for words come from an identifiable source, for example 'swingeing' in the early 2010s around cuts/austerity.
My least favourite recent word-meme has been the use of '[x party] do not recognise this', a weaselly non-denial denial.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1673283218366242817
She is the expert when it comes to missing billions.
Maybe this is nothing to do with Boris. Maybe these are voters concerned about stopping the small boats, who are observing that the Government’s approach so far has completely failed to stop the small boats.
This story has a way to run it seems.
Your second I agree on, Sunak needs to stop the boats with Braverman to win lots of them back
For more on this subject, see also: Greens.
I suspect that you're an expert on saying something is much larger than it actually is.
"perhaps the last electoral cycle someone might get away with such gibberish."
Is that a quote from Themistocles?
Please click on the link below to find general guidance on the course and logic exercises to complete and return.
Preparatory reading for Philosophy (PPE, PML)
https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/philosophy-politics-and-economics-reading-list'
Is he actually on track to achieve any of them*? Indeed, for four of the five, the evidence is showing the numbers moving in the opposite direction. Only in the one he really doesn't have actual control over - halving inflation - are the figures moving in a vaguely positively direction, albeit too slowly.
*Obviously not, but still worth asking as it illustrates his shaky politics.
IIRC, car dealer is the most common occupation for those earning more than $1m a year in the US.
Franchised car dealers in the US, really don’t want EVs.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vvozRyADahk
To “flirt” used to mean a give someone a sharp blow or to sneer at them. “Cute” used to mean quick-witted. “Nice” used to mean ignorant.
Words change their meaning, and every generation is irked by this.
I’m not counting chickens when all I can see is eggs, but…
But the fact that words have changed in the past doesn't mean we should give up now. Can you think of an example of a word changing where you think the English speaking world was better off as a result?
Sick fact, innit?
(I'm not suggesting that was actually so in TSE's case.)
If it hadn't evolved, we'd still be speaking Latin.
How is public transport going to work efficiently - Do the authorities put in the transit routes before the zoning or afterwards?
At what point would the authorities consider something like walkways, cycle paths etc? At the point when the land is zoned, or afterwards?
Regarding your comments about much of the cost of new housing being 'planning', this is true to a point, but what about other factors such as 'desirability of location'? Would you agree that the cost of land for housing (and reflected in sale prices) is also influenced by this? For instance, in that article I linked to above, the houses in the suburbs of Sydney were not cheap - the defective planning had not reduced the desirability of the location.
I would agree that the system isn't working that well and needs to be reformed, but that is an altogether different idea from 'getting rid of planning'.
FWIW your ideas are very similar to what the government (via policy exchange) actually proposed in January 2020.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Rethinking-the-Planning-System-for-the-21st-Century.pdf
The government then developed this set of reforms off the back of it in a white paper, which I thought were actually pretty good.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/958420/MHCLG-Planning-Consultation.pdf
Unfortunately this work basically went nowhere. The only legacy of it is a set of perplexing reforms to the use classes order, making it difficult for Council's to control changes of use.
To be clear, I don't mind us adding to our language. But I don't see how it benefits anyone when words change their meanings.
We might be using words differently to how our ancestors used them. But that doesn't mean the process of them changing their meanings was positive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12193279/Thrice-married-electrician-convicted-bigamy-wife-learned-Holiday-Inn-wedding.html
Words changing meaning often means new words are created. “Nephew” used to have a more generic meaning and became more specific, which is useful. Likewise, “meat” used to mean any food and became more specific. English has such a large vocabulary today because words changed meaning.
Obviously I block them from internet access and only allow inward viewing via my own VPN but you do wonder what is being done with all that data.
Now if they had revealed there was still a backdoor into the camera despite the patch or the show they are transmitting your video to them, now that would be a story. And of course the wider story about should we be trusting the like of Hikvision for cameras all over the country, now that is definitely worthy of discussion.
But on this specific story, its piss poor. General IoT marketed products are unsafe isn't the angle they are going for (which is certainly yet another story worthy of discussion, because they are and authorities really not caught on yet.
Let the owner of the land decide.
Where land is valuable in its own right, rather than because of planning, eg in cities then building up will probably happen not because you or I want it, but because that's the most effective use of land so people will choose to do it.
Transit routes, along with schooling and other public services should evolve over time, you might have an initial idea but it shouldn't ever be ossified. People change and adapt what they use. An area that is bought out by young people may end up becoming embraced by old people - sometimes the same ex-young people who never moved.
We need to evolve over time, not plan something based on the needs of decades ago.
Yes the 2020 reforms were a good idea, didn't go as far as I'd like but a big step in the right direction, its a shame they were dropped.
Words meanings evolve because the new meaning has more use than the old one, so the new usage supersedes the old one.
Evolution is a good thing.
But they have the ear of state legislators, and can write their own protectionist Bills.
Not because it doesn't have important work to do but because no-one in Government wants to pay for it.
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1673311499467595777
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake...
Nobody said elves were nice.
Elves are bad...."
Terry Pratchett, "Lords and Ladies", 1992
Just a thought. 🤔
I have no objection to new words. But I object to losing words. As I said before, if literally doesn't literally mean literally, what word can we use? If disinterested comes to mean indifferent, we have two words which mean indifferent and none which mean disinterested. Surely we can agree this is an inefficient use of language?
A few real examples of real billions missing, need a week to put them all in ..........
Tories slammed for losing around £15bn of taxpayer cash to Covid fraud
UK lost up to £16bn due to fraud and error in Covid loans schemes
£21bn of public money lost in fraud since COVID pandemic began and most will never be recovered
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbkInTnNQ28
But I hate the Americanism 'threepeat'.
That's not because it wouldn't be useful to have a word meaning 'do somthing three times'. It just feels linguistically wrong. It would only work if the word for repeat was 'twopeat'.
(for all those who don't know, British naval sub commanders had earphones with their rank displayed as coloured cubes. It looks like somebody stuck part of a Rubik's Cube on top of their head)
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/1055/report.html
Seventh Annual Report of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts
1. Foreword
Welcome to my 7th annual report as Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts (the Committee).
This report covers the period that the country opened up after two years of lockdowns.
We have continued to monitor the money spent on Covid-19 although with increasing frustration that much of the money lost through fraud is unlikely to be recovered...
Maybe it’s a good thing that languages evolve, maybe it’s a bad thing, but I see little point in being King Cnut on the beach.
My criticism however is that you are presenting a superficially easy answer ("scrap planning") to a complicated question.
I should have made clear I meant that particular piece of gibberish.
Legacy sequel (one done decades after the original, eg Blade Runner 2049)
When I went to Reading festival a couple of years back, there were bins all over the place. They were handing out free rubbish bags. There were paid rubbish pickers.
And still the group was so full of plastic, that the only way I could see to deal with it would be to wait until the festival was over. Then scrape and sieve the all topsoil to a depth of about 6 inches…
Did you know that as well as fortnight (a contraction of 'fourteen night', of course) there was once a term 'sennight' as a perfectly cromulent synonym for 'week'?